Future PLAAF fleet procurement and composition

reservior dogs said:

I now see the reason you laid out about retiring the J-16s. If indeed the PLA wanted to keep the manned aircraft fleet the same size, I do see that as a possibility. What to do with the J-16s? They have good engine, good radars, long combat radius. On the other hand, once they are mothballed as is, when the PLA need this asset, there will be no one left who know how to fly them.

Click to expand...

So, the point of mothballing aircraft isn't necessarily to be able to return them to service rapidly -- instead it can be to simply ensure that the airframes are present and able to be restored to an operational capability to begin with, but it is accepted it would require effort and time. Such a circumstance would have to be an emergency to require it, and it wouldn't happen overnight.

Because of that, it doesn't really matter if there are no active pilots that know how to fly them, because they can always retain the flight manuals and knowledge gained from past pilots in archives, and if needed past/retired pilots can be reactivated and consulted to give advice to any new pilots.
Furthermore, beyond mothballed J-16s and J-10Cs likely won't be relevant beyond the 2040s anyway -- that is to say,

reservior dogs said:

I suggest turning them into drones. strip out the pilot related stuff, add CPU etc. to ensure the configuration can autonomously process all the sensor inputs, control the plane and the weapons and communicate and network with other assets. It can then be mothballed. Some day in the future, AI will make drones more lethal and make them behave more like manned assets. As time goes on, upgrade the software/hardware for the control portion.

Click to expand...

That's a bad idea, because converting manned aircraft into drones will take up not only industry resources, but converted aircraft would be suboptimal UCAVs/CCAs compared to actual UCAVs/CCAs (see the aircraft from last year's parades), while still having the problem of needing maintenance personnel and air bases to operate the "drone J-16s" at.

By converting J-16s to drones, you haven't actually dealt with the problem. Remember, the problem is having bases and personnel required to support J-16s in any meaningful operational state to begin with, because J-16s ultimately are designed from the outset as a manned tactical heavyweight fighter to begin with -- it isn't a bespoke UCAV/CCA airframe.

The goal is to free up bases and personnel for more capable, more optimized, and more modern aircraft.

Or let's put it this way -- the rate limiting factor for increases in PLAAF tactical air capability, by 2030, likely will not be their ability to fund and procure and produce highly capable fighter aircraft at scale.
Instead, their rate limiting factor for increases in capability will be the number of personnel they have and the number of bases that they have ---> i.e.: the maximum number of fighters that they are able to operate.

If the maximum number of fighters (including "converted J-16 drones" in your suggestion) that they are able to operate does not see a major increase, then the only other way to increase their capability will be to increase the qualitative capability of their individual fighter types.

reservior dogs said:

BTW, I meant to say PL-21 instead of YJ-21, which allows the J-16 to fire off shots at long range.

Click to expand...

PL-21 is a name used to refer to a ramjet BVRAAM, but as far as we know such a missile has not been pursued by the PLA at this stage.
PL-16 and PL-17 might be better stand-ins for your point... but of course this still doesn't actually change anything.

That's because the problem with J-16 isn't whether it can "fire off shots at long range" the problem for J-16 is whether it is the best use of bases and personnel for the totality of capability it offers versus 5th gen fighters. And the likes of J-20/A/S and J-35/A can of course use PL-16, while also able to carry PL-17s externally most likely -- and more importantly are much more capable than J-16 in every other domain as well.

Therefore, J-16 being able to "fire off shots at long range" means nothing when 5th gens can do that as well, and much much much more.

Tessier2501 said:

I'm not familiar with the PLAAF's fleet composition, but shouldn't they retire all their 3rd and 4th-generation aircraft first, or have most of them already been retired?

Click to expand...

Basically all 3rd gen fighters are retired already and some "early" 4th gens are also retired.
Based on production of 5th gen fighters from now to 2030, it is likely that vast majority of the "early" 4th gen fighters will be replaced by new build 5th gens around 2030.

The discussion around mothballing 4.5th gens post 2030 is assuming that all "early 4th gens" have already been retired and replace by newbuild 5th gens.

(early 4th gens including J-11A/Su-27SK, Su-30MKK/MK2, J-11B variants, J-10A, and also JH-7/A technically)

Blitzo said:

By converting J-16s to drones, you haven't actually dealt with the problem. Remember, the problem is having bases and personnel required to support J-16s in any meaningful operational state to begin with, because J-16s ultimately are designed from the outset as a manned tactical heavyweight fighter to begin with -- it isn't a bespoke UCAV/CCA airframe.

Click to expand...

Unless you scrap it for metal, the planes are going to be put in storage anyways. If you look at how much of the assets are attritted in a war, there may come a day when large number of planes are lost and need the j-16 to make up the numbers. In this scenario, the J-16 will fill the space left from the lost airframes, so until they get used, there will be no need to maintain larger staff. For drones, you just need the ground crew to load the drones with programs, weapons and fuel and launch them off. The staff and base requirements are quite different from manned aircrafts.

reservior dogs said:

Unless you scrap it for metal, the planes are going to be put in storage anyways. If you look at how much of the assets are attritted in a war, there may come a day when large number of planes are lost and need the j-16 to make up the numbers. In this scenario, the J-16 will fill the space left from the lost airframes, so until they get used, there will be no need to maintain larger staff. For drones, you just need the ground crew to load the drones with programs, weapons and fuel and launch them off. The staff and base requirements are quite different from manned aircrafts.

Click to expand...

There are different levels of storage. Stripping an aircraft in retirement and leaving their airframes to rot is different to mothballing them in preservation.

The point of mothballing is to put the aircraft away in a manner where they are preserved but do not need an airbase or ongoing maintenance and support in the manner that operational aircraft do -- that way you free up airbases and personnel for other duties.
The problem is that J-16 drones will require ongoing personnel and basing to keep them in a state of higher readiness like what you describe, even if they are not flown as regularly as manned aircraft.



Or let's put it this way -- the primary benefit is getting rid of the J-16s (and J-10Cs) so they take up as little valuable air base space and personnel for as possible (and converting them to drones will still very much take up air base space and require personnel if you want them to be in a state of readiness).
Anything else on top of that is extras on top. Mothballing them in preservation, in a state such that they can be restored to flying condition over say, 1-2 years, is fine, because they do not require air bases for preservation, and they do not require significant ongoing maintenance or upkeep. They would exist in a state of mothball for about 10 years, and after that they would be scrapped (because by 2040+ the 4.5th gen jets would be entirely obsolete and they'd likely have lots of 5th and 6th gens and UCAVs/CCAs that would be able to take up more than the share of active war attrition and then some).

I feel like manned 4.5 gen aircraft is already obsolete with advance of CCA. That is right, even J-16. Planes like J-16 are only tolerated by virtues of some neighbors are even worse, and sunk cost. But in a real fight, they are less effective than 5th gen + drones in every way, even as bomb trucks. Their existence is purely of industrial innertia and previous conservative planning.

Say nothing of older airframes like J-10A. Everything older than J-10B is not worth flying in a fight. The rest should be kept as reserve units ready to be replaced.

I am of the proponent of rapidly retiring workable but obsolete platforms. There will be upsizing yes, but that would be due to inclusion of new 5th gen. I made the prediction of at least 1000 5th gen by early 2030 a long time ago. The virtue of 5th gen production alone will require expansion, even if older plane were retired.

It is a shame. Usually obsolete but capable weapons are sold. China cannot sell flankers for obvious reasons, and now their overinvestment is sort of biting them in the ass.

I think this question really depends on how UCAVs develop. If they become valuable components of air forces in the future, then the answer will be to retire the 4.5 gens.

I've stated it in the past, IMO with the complexity of operating latest aircrafts the limiting factor in a future war won't be airframes but pilots. In a war scenario, military production can increase by leaps and bounds in a 1-2 year period, similar to the amount of time it took to train a WW2 pilot. However, it would take at least 3-4 years to train a single 6th gen pilot (that's how long it takes for a 5th gen, but may be more for 6th gen) and thus it would take that long to even begin seeing a significant increase in the number of pilots. As such, it may be a waste of resources to dedicate limited pilot numbers to outdated airframes, and numbers in terms of airframes in a wartime scenario should then be boosted by increased UCAV production rather than reactivating mothballed 4.5 gens.

TK3600 said:

I feel like manned 4.5 gen aircraft is already obsolete with advance of CCA. That is right, even J-16. Planes like J-16 are only tolerated by virtues of some neighbors are even worse, and sunk cost. But in a real fight, they are less effective than 5th gen + drones in every way, even as bomb trucks. Their existence is purely of industrial innertia and previous conservative planning.

Say nothing of older airframes like J-10A. Everything older than J-10B is not worth flying in a fight. The rest should be kept as reserve units ready to be replaced.

It is a shame. Usually obsolete but capable weapons are sold. China cannot sell flankers for obvious reasons, and now their overinvestment is sort of biting them in the ass.

Click to expand...

IMO that's actually the wrong way to see it -- it is more that the PRC is arguably one of only two nations who are able to procure 5th gens and CCAs/UCAVs (and soon 6th gens) on both a timely basis and in sufficient scale such that they have the luxury to retire 4.5th gens early if they wanted to.
The other nation of the two of course is the US, and tbh even the PRC might in some ways be ahead of the US in that respect depending on how the likes of F-47, F-35 Block 4, and US CCA programs progress relative to PLA programs.

Other nations which are not the PRC and China will be stuck with flying 4th, 4.5th and small 5th gen fleets for years to come because they don't have the industrial strength and the industrial capacity to produce 5th gen aircraft, UCAVs/CCAs, and 6th gen jets at a sufficient scale and speed.
Having to do so is a very undesirable position to be in, because ideally they would be able to transition to all 5th gen + UCAVs/CCAs and to prepare for 6th gens by 2030+.
Even the USAF is likely to continue flying 4.5th gen and MLU'd 4th gen aircraft well beyond 2030 because of industry and funding limitations.


At most, one could somewhat jokingly suggest that the PRC is "suffering from success" -- but that success is very much a desirable trait for the contest for air superiority, because everyone wants to fight as much of an unfair fight as possible against the enemy, and for the odds to be tilted as much in their own favour as possible.

(Additionally, one could argue that mass procurement of 4.5th gens including J-10C and J-16 set the stage for development and proliferation of contemporary and future aerial warfare tactics and technologies that were a necessary step for refining 5th generation aircraft development and beyond... leaving aside of course their importance if a conflict were to occur before 2030).

dingyibvs said:

I think this question really depends on how UCAVs develop. If they become valuable components of air forces in the future, then the answer will be to retire the 4.5 gens.

I've stated it in the past, IMO with the complexity of operating latest aircrafts the limiting factor in a future war won't be airframes but pilots. In a war scenario, military production can increase by leaps and bounds in a 1-2 year period, similar to the amount of time it took to train a WW2 pilot. However, it would take at least 3-4 years to train a single 6th gen pilot (that's how long it takes for a 5th gen, but may be more for 6th gen) and thus it would take that long to even begin seeing a significant increase in the number of pilots. As such, it may be a waste of resources to dedicate limited pilot numbers to outdated airframes, and numbers in terms of airframes in a wartime scenario should then be boosted by increased UCAV production rather than reactivating mothballed 4.5 gens.

Click to expand...

As mentioned before, the proliferation of UCAVs/CCAs really shouldn't be the determining factor in whether they start to mothball/retire 4.5th gens or not post 2030.
The main deciding factor is whether they want to expand or maintain their overall manned fighter fleet size come 2030 onwards, because by that point it is likely that 5th generation cumulative production will have been able to replace all pre-4.5th gen aircraft, making 4.5th gen aircraft the oldest generation fighters by then. If 5th gen production continues post 2030 and 6th gen production starts in the same time period, then they'll have to make the decision of whether to expand the manned fighter fleet size or not -- and if they don't expand it, then it will be the 4.5th gens slated next for replacement.

Putting it another way, UCAVs/CCAs are likely to influence the overall manned fighter fleet size, but they won't change the underlying drivers of whether it makes sense to replace 4.5th gens with 5th gens from 2030 onwards overall.

There is no logical reason not to retire 4.5 gen platform besides psychological unwillingness of wasting planes. I expect it to come in waves.

First wave will be likes of JH-7, J-11A and J-10A. They will go because they are not useful anymore, little to debate. Even still some life left.

Second wave will be the capable platforms like J-10B, J-11B series. They will be replaced with most still in good conditions, where most of our debate lies.

Third wave will come for J-10C and J-16 even if they are very elite by world standard. It will be retired much later, but still sooner than you would expect. Better than 90% of world dont matter, they are just scrap metals compared to 5th gen and drones, and likely by early 2030s even 6th gen are entering.

Blitzo said:

IMO that's actually the wrong way to see it -- it is more that the PRC is arguably one of only two nations who are able to procure 5th gens and CCAs/UCAVs (and soon 6th gens) on both a timely basis and in sufficient scale such that they have the luxury to retire 4.5th gens early if they wanted to.
The other nation of the two of course is the US, and tbh even the PRC might in some ways be ahead of the US in that respect depending on how the likes of F-47, F-35 Block 4, and US CCA programs progress relative to PLA programs.

Other nations which are not the PRC and China will be stuck with flying 4th, 4.5th and small 5th gen fleets for years to come because they don't have the industrial strength and the industrial capacity to produce 5th gen aircraft, UCAVs/CCAs, and 6th gen jets at a sufficient scale and speed.
Having to do so is a very undesirable position to be in, because ideally they would be able to transition to all 5th gen + UCAVs/CCAs and to prepare for 6th gens by 2030+.
Even the USAF is likely to continue flying 4.5th gen and MLU'd 4th gen aircraft well beyond 2030 because of industry and funding limitations.


At most, one could somewhat jokingly suggest that the PRC is "suffering from success" -- but that success is very much a desirable trait for the contest for air superiority, because everyone wants to fight as much of an unfair fight as possible against the enemy, and for the odds to be tilted as much in their own favour as possible.

(Additionally, one could argue that mass procurement of 4.5th gens including J-10C and J-16 set the stage for development and proliferation of contemporary and future aerial warfare tactics and technologies that were a necessary step for refining 5th generation aircraft development and beyond... leaving aside of course their importance if a conflict were to occur before 2030).




As mentioned before, the proliferation of UCAVs/CCAs really shouldn't be the determining factor in whether they start to mothball/retire 4.5th gens or not post 2030.
The main deciding factor is whether they want to expand or maintain their overall manned fighter fleet size come 2030 onwards, because by that point it is likely that 5th generation cumulative production will have been able to replace all pre-4.5th gen aircraft, making 4.5th gen aircraft the oldest generation fighters by then. If 5th gen production continues post 2030 and 6th gen production starts in the same time period, then they'll have to make the decision of whether to expand the manned fighter fleet size or not -- and if they don't expand it, then it will be the 4.5th gens slated next for replacement.

Putting it another way, UCAVs/CCAs are likely to influence the overall manned fighter fleet size, but they won't change the underlying drivers of whether it makes sense to replace 4.5th gens with 5th gens from 2030 onwards overall.

Click to expand...

I used to be like you in camp of "save these 4.5 gen j-11B for weaker countries". But I arrived at the conclusion even for bullying, 5th gen and drones can do so more efficiently. If J-11B can beat these old F-16 1v2 figuratively speaking, J-35 can do it 1v5 and only cost twice as much. Drones are straight up better pulling 1v4 while cost less to operate, maintain. There is just no argument to be made if you have to choose who to use. These planes are just pilot holders until better replacement arrive.

They are like WW1 battleship in age of 1943, even the newer battleship(J16) is questionable. Who cares if these WWI battleship can stomp all of Africa and maybe South America. They are not even cost effective to operate relative to new designs, that is how obsolete they are against newer carriers.

And as I said the expansion will happen. But it will not be due to inclusion of older plane. They will aggressively retire. I made my position clear.

The only one that might live to their life span might be specialized J-16. J-10C might to be sold. The older flankers, rest in peace.

TK3600 said:

I used to be like you in camp of "save these 4.5 gen j-11B for weaker countries". But I arrived at the conclusion even for bullying, 5th gen and drones can do so more efficiently. If J-11B can beat these old F-16 1v2 figuratively speaking, J-35 can do it 1v5 and only cost twice as much. Drones are straight up better pulling 1v4 while cost less to operate, maintain. There is just no argument to be made if you have to choose who to use. These planes are just pilot holders until better replacement arrive.

They are like WW1 battleship in age of 1943, even the newer battleship(J16) is questionable. Who cares if these WWI battleship can stomp all of Africa and maybe South America. They are not even cost effective to operate, that is how obsolete they are against newer carriers.

And as I said the expansion will happen. But it will not be due to inclusion of older plane. They will aggressively retire. I made my position clear.

The only one that might live to their life span might be specialized J-16. J-10C might to be sold. The older flankers, rest in peace.

Click to expand...

Uhh I think you've misread my position and my posts.
I'm not in the camp of "save those 4.5th gens for weaker countries" (at least, not in the last few months or years).


I am saying that it makes the most sense to replace their 4.5th gen jets with 5th gen jets by the time that it is their turn, because 5th gen jets are obviously far superior to 4.5th gen aircraft while being able to do their missions as well.

I'm very confused as to why you think that I'm in the camp of "save 4.5th gen jets for weaker countries" --- that is almost the complete opposite of what I've been writing.

I apologize if I misunderstood you. What I am trying to say is I am decisively leaning to retire 4th gen as soon as replacement comes. No waiting for life span wear out. Almost no point even keeping them mothballed. By early 2030s. J-11B is the J-7 of today. J-16 is J-8 of today. Using them ever is act of extreme desperation that world is about to end. And if you agree then I am definitely on your camp in this.