Future PLA combat aircraft composition

plawolf said:

cut

Click to expand...

The airwing that I had described before -- i.e.: the 70 combat aircraft airwing circa 2042 -- is a wartime airwing, not peacetime. Not included in that count are an additional 20 other aircraft -- fixed wing AEW&C, helicopters, maybe COD, for a total of 90.

If you are talking about adding in aircraft for attrition and/or shore based training -- that is fair, you can add a certain percentage to the total number of aircraft of each type to revise it upwards as appropriate.
However the overall breakdown of the airwing circa 2042 that I described before, remains the same.



With regards to the priorities of future UCAVs, I think you mistake my meaning.
What I wrote was that the priorities of a land based MUMT A2A UCAV design would be, in descending order: stealth, cost, range/endurance, and payload.
The costs of such an aircraft would be attained through having an overall smaller aircraft than an equivalent manned aircraft of similar size or payload (reducing the cockpit and associated life support systems significantly enhancing range and endurance), as well as building a UCAV that does not require the structural strengthening to achieve the same kind of 9G maneuvring as a manned aircraft needs to do. Smaller sized sensors as well as payload bays will also be part of this picture, nor is there a need for this aircraft to be supersonic capable.
I would also envision that these UCAVs would not have to be built with the same airframe as a manned fighter, further cutting down on their cost -- after all, these UCAVs would not be required to conduct regular flight training for pilots given they do not require humans on board, and occasional exercises to demonstrate and upgrade systems level doctrine, software, and weapons can be done with only a fraction of the number of annual sorties that a manned fighter needs to do. Key, expensive onboard subsystems -- specifically the sensors -- would be designed to be easily recycled from UCAVs that happen to reach the end of their airframe life during peacetime, to be fitted onto newly built airframes.

Primarily, the savings of these MUMT A2A UCAVs will be:
- smaller size than equivalent manned aircraft for an equivalent range or payload
- significantly less stringent structural requirements (for Gs as well as for maneuvring)
- smaller sensor and payload bays (compared to say, a J-20 or an F-35)
- significantly shorter flight hour lifespan (related to a much reduced need to regularly fly them or train pilots on them compared to manned fighters)


I am not suggesting that these UCAVs need to be actively emitting "all" the time -- only actively emitting once they reach their area of operations, and even then they would actively emit selectively, not necessarily all at the same time. The necessity for VLO is because in the battlespace of the future, if you want your aerial assets to even get to the frontline in the first place to prevent detection from enemy AEW&C at long ranges, you will require VLO.





My view with regards to BVR and 5th generation aircraft is actually based off similar principles to you -- that is to say, I do not believe that AESAs can "effectively counter" 5th generation aircraft like conventional 4th generation aircraft.
I believe that 5th generation aircraft and their inherent VLO means that BVR detection and engagement ranges will be significantly reduced compared to detecting and engaging a 4th generation aircraft.
However that is why I believe having a larger number of airborne sensors and shooters is important, and why having "attritible" sensors/shooters that can be deployed more forward of your manned fighters is the way forward for future air combat.
The UCAVs deployed in the forward lines will detect the enemy 5th generation fighters -- albeit of course at much shorter ranges than they would detect a 4th generation fighter -- and your UCAVs will either engage the enemy with their own onboard weapons, or they will pass on targeting information to the manned fighter aircraft operating many kilometers behind the UCAVs to allow the manned aircraft to engage the enemy fighters with their BVR weapons (cued by weapons quality tracks from said UCAVs).... or ideally both your forward placed UCAVs and your more rear emplaced manned fighters can engage the enemy 5th generation fighter at the same time in a coordinated fashion.

And EO/IRST would certainly be part of the sensor suite of these MUMT UCAVs. Not every single UCAV necessarily needs to be equipped with an EO/IRST or an AESA -- a standard sensor suite could be just one or the other -- but the summation of a large multiship formation will offer a distributed, networked sensor cloud.
However, the end goal is still to have a formation of attritible forward placed sensor/shooter UCAVs with manned aircraft behind them.
The basic conops is to to detect the enemy's manned 5th gens before their manned 5th gens can detect your manned 5th gens -- and to engage their manned 5th gens earlier than they can engage you (through the form of forward placed UCAVs engaging with their own weapons, and/or those forward placed UCAVs cuing BVR weapons from your manned fighters operating further back).
If the enemy's 5th gens somehow manage to get through your forward UCAVs and manage to reach where your own 5th gens are, the idea is that the enemy's 5th gens would be significantly depleted in strength by the time they arrive. Furthermore, your own 5th gens should have far superior situational awareness provided to you by your forward placed UCAVs having detected/tracked/engaged the enemy earlier which can allow your manned 5th gens to position themselves in manners to enable favourable engagements.


As for A2A UCAV loyal wingmen primarily being glorified magazine extensions for manned fighters -- that is somewhat close to my vision.
I would argue that future A2A UCAV loyal wingmen/MUMT would best be described as glorified magazine and sensor extensions for manned fighters designed to operate forward of manned fighters and designed to be lower cost, more attritible, and greater in number.

I seriously doubt new carriers will ever get to 70 combat aircraft (or 90 when non-combat are included). I don't expect UCAVs to be some small, mass use items. Rather, I expect them to be almost the size of a J-10 plane.

50 or so combat fixed wing manned and unmanned aircraft seems pretty much the limit for me, even with wartime loads. Not sure we'll actually get to know the actual number though, even if a war does break out.

For a 70 warplane load I'd expect to see a carrier of comfortably over 100 0000 tons. And I just don't see China needing or building such ships. Perhaps never but surely not for several decades.

Totoro said:

I seriously doubt new carriers will ever get to 70 combat aircraft (or 90 when non-combat are included). I don't expect UCAVs to be some small, mass use items. Rather, I expect them to be almost the size of a J-10 plane.

50 or so combat fixed wing manned and unmanned aircraft seems pretty much the limit for me, even with wartime loads. Not sure we'll actually get to know the actual number though, even if a war does break out.

For a 70 warplane load I'd expect to see a carrier of comfortably over 100 0000 tons. And I just don't see China needing or building such ships. Perhaps never but surely not for several decades.

Click to expand...

For the record, the carriers I was envisioning were indeed 100,000 ton CATOBAR CVNs, and a post 2042 goal of up to 12.

Totoro said:

For a 70 warplane load I'd expect to see a carrier of comfortably over 100 0000 tons. And I just don't see China needing or building such ships. Perhaps never but surely not for several decades.

Click to expand...

While I'm not sure the number of aircraft that would be on the carrier, the Chinese will obviously build ~100k ton carriers.

They quite literally are launching an 85,000 ton carrier next year. You think they are just going to call it quits after that for 50 years?

Also, similar-sized US carriers don't carry 70 warplanes with 90 total anyway, isn't that some surge number that is less efficient at generating sorties? Why would China be any different and carry more than 50 warplanes and 70ish total.

Just a question ... shall we end this discussion on number of aircraft carriers and naval aircraft in this section? It is the PLAAF section and the topic is "Future PLA combat aircraft composition" with PLA = PLAAF?!

Deino said:

Just a question ... shall we end this discussion on number of aircraft carriers and naval aircraft in this section? It is the PLAAF section and the topic is "Future PLA combat aircraft composition" with PLA = PLAAF?!

Click to expand...

I think it's difficult to cleanly separate PLAN air combat composition from PLAAF air combat composition -- changes and assumptions of one always rests on assumptions of the other.

I think keeping it as general PLA combat aircraft composition is okay for now.


(Additionally, I feel like moving the threads about J-15, J-XY and KJ-600 from the Navy Subforum to the Air Force Subforum should make more sense -- or better yet, rename the "Navy" and "Air Force" subforums to "Naval" and "Air" in general rather than being service specific but domain specific, but this could be a discussion for another time)

I expect the 003 type carriers to enter service in the 2020s, and expect them to be 80 000 t vessels with some 48 combat aircraft load in wartime. Possibly operating with fewer most of the time.

I also expect the bigger, likely nuclear carrier to enter service in the 2030s. And expect them to be just under 100 000 t or barely edging over that figure. and to feature up to 60 combat aircraft in wartime. Again, possibly operating with fewer most of the time.

To comfortably operate 70 fixed wing combat aircraft in wartime, I'd expect a 120 000 ton carrier, basically larger than any other carrier known today. Whether China will ever build and operate such a carrier is unknown, but even if it happens, I doubt it would happen before China can regularly operate deep within the Pacific ocean. Meaning the second island chain must not be an issue anymore. And for that to happen - decades and decades may be needed. We're possibly talking about late 21st century. Who knows what the geopolitical situation or the technological progress would look like then. In theory, carriers themselves will change significantly - if ground based planes can manage massive ranges with some futuristic technology.

Problem with seeing a massive PLAN CSG force is that you're assuming carriers matter. China has more or less solved the USN carrier problem through a combination of ground-based aviation, anti-carrier cruise missiles, and anti-ship ballistic missiles. It stands to reason that if the US had a similar issue with PLAN CSGs, the US could just clone Chinese capabilities and toss a similar suite at PLAN CSGs from the Second Island Chain. If you're assuming USN CSGs aren't survivable, then PLAN CSGs aren't survivable either.

On the other hand, even if we're moving toward a post-carrier conception of naval warfare, carriers STILL remain useful for certain tasks. For instance, carriers are the best aircraft to launch AEW&C to provide better radar coverage for a naval task force. Carriers, as large, bulk warships are ideally suited for providing logistics support to amphibious forces, as well as air support for amphibious landings.

===

In talking with folks on F-16.net, it seems clear to me that the obvious use of PLAN CSGs isn't to contest the USN, although that's one use, but rather, the CSGs provide offensive firepower in the South China Sea, threatening all ASEAN countries and deterring them from getting involved in a US-led containment web. In a parity fight, the PLAN has too few CSGs to seriously contest the USN. But the USN has never faced a parity opponent either, and the Chinese likely intend it for similar purposes as the USN, which is to say, it's for threatening and bullying weaker forces.

And Type 004 is still considered to be a Nimitz / Ford equivalent, isn't it? In which case, with 4 Type 004s, you could see around 180-240 J-XYs built for it.

===

One other thing to be pointed out is that the PLAN might not evolve to use carriers in the same way as the USN. We have the Type 076 LHD, which seems to be evolving to become a drone carrier. With the USN, the supercarriers carry strike aircraft which are not fully oriented to the air defense mission, as the Su-33 and Soviet carriers were (aircraft carrying heavy cruiser). With the PLAN, what we might see is that the strike or attack mission gets offloaded to LHD UCAVs, since strike is a known and mature UCAV mission, while the Chinese supercarriers are tasked to air superiority missions instead, in support of a fleet that considers itself, not the carrier, the primary striking arm.

While the US is addicted to using carriers to decide naval battles, if you look it up, an F-35's strike package per pound is between 6 and 8 times as expensive as the loadouts on an Arleigh Burke. With advancing naval weapons technology (lasers, railguns), it's possible that by the time China masters supercarrier technology, the carrier would become obsolete as a decider of sea battles and is relegated instead into a supporting role.

Are we considering the impact the Type 076 will have?

Assuming it is part of these future CSGs you are discussing then it will have an electromagnetic launcher dedicated for UAVs.

This could allow the carriers to focus on manned aircraft while unmanned is taken care of by the 076. This would also simplify things for each flat top, presumably.

Andy1974 said:

Are we considering the impact the Type 076 will have?

Assuming it is part of these future CSGs you are discussing then it will have an electromagnetic launcher dedicated for UAVs.

This could allow the carriers to focus on manned aircraft while unmanned is taken care of by the 076. This would also simplify things for each flat top, presumably.

Click to expand...

Isnt the type 076 supposed to be a LHD used by PLANMC mainly for amphibious operations?

So the UCAVs on board should take a similar role that the F-35B serve in the USMC.

I dont doubt that the PLAN would like to utilise the type 076 for more multirole operations but IMO the type 076 would mainly be used for amphibious operations + air support