J-20 5th Gen Fighter Thread VIII

[Wrought]

I was not advocating for early retirement of any of the already AESA equipped 4th gens.

Right sorry for mixing you up with the others, I got a lot of replies.

I agree with the idea that new procurement should focus on new platforms. Where I have a problem is with the idea of replacing existing platforms when they are still useful to free up J-20s for the roles which actually need J-20s.

 

[gelgoog]

The J-11 and Su-30MKK are basically obsolete at this point. Just engine maintenance costs and possibly issues with integration of Chinese weapons on the Russian avionics alone would warrant getting rid of these aircraft. Replacing them with the J-20.

The alternative would be an extensive upgrade program where the electronics and engines on these aircraft are changed. But I question the worth of doing that. The Russians considered doing the same to their Su-27s at one point but then abandoned the idea.

 

[sunnymaxi]

I agree with the idea that new procurement should focus on new platforms. Where I have a problem is with the idea of replacing existing platforms when they are still useful to free up J-20s for the roles which actually need J-20s.

J-20 is not going to replace any AESA equipped fighter jet in PLAAF ..

PLAAF still have a lot old J-11/J-10/SU-30MKK. those aircrafts are liability especially engine maintenance itself consume energy and money. let alone obsolete electronics ..

once WS-15 enter in proper production you will see number of J-20s will be skyrocketed.

 

[siegecrossbow]

The J-11 and Su-30MKK are basically obsolete at this point. Just engine maintenance costs and possibly issues with integration of Chinese weapons on the Russian avionics alone would warrant getting rid of these aircraft. Replacing them with the J-20.

The alternative would be an extensive upgrade program where the electronics and engines on these aircraft are changed. But I question the worth of doing that. The Russians considered doing the same to their Su-27s at one point but then abandoned the idea.

They are still useful for peace time interceptions. J-7s and non-reconnaissance J-8s will be retired first. Supposedly Southern Theater Command is down to one J-7 brigade that will be replaced with J-10C later this year.

 

[sunnymaxi]

J-8s will be retired first. Supposedly Southern Theater Command is down to one J-7 brigade that will be replaced with J-10C later this year.

correct me if i m wrong, there are less than 50 J-8s in PLAAF .. so it is matter of time.

Supposedly Southern Theater Command is down to one J-7 brigade that will be replaced with J-10C later this year.

why not with J-16 or J-20 ?? J-10 production already slowed down..

 

[Deino]

They are still useful for peace time interceptions. J-7s and non-reconnaissance J-8s will be retired first. Supposedly Southern Theater Command is down to one J-7 brigade that will be replaced with J-10C later this year.

Any hint which one?

 

[Phead128]

Where I have a problem is with the idea of replacing existing platforms when they are still useful to free up J-20s for the roles which actually need J-20s.

China likely is losing the war if it needs J-10/J-11 to intercept cruise missiles. It's more about winning the war rather than optimizing a losing situation. You ideally don't want US cruise missiles to be within interception range of short-legged J-10s, because that means your J-20s has been pushed backwards into mainland. J-20's brings fight is thousands KM away, and push US assets outwards, outside the range of cruise missiles, obviating need for cost-effective interception to begin with. It's like a solution looking for a problem - if you already push US out of cruise missiles range, why do you need J-10/J-11 intercepting cruise missiles. (J-16 better suited anyways)

 

[Wrought]

China likely is losing the war if it needs J-10/J-11 to intercept cruise missiles. It's more about winning the war rather than optimizing a losing situation. You ideally don't want US cruise missiles to be within interception range of short-legged J-10s, because that means your J-20s has been pushed backwards into mainland. J-20's brings fight is thousands KM away, and push US assets outwards, outside the range of cruise missiles, obviating need for cost-effective interception to begin with.

Losing the war? Maybe. That being said, it seems foolish to neglect the possibility that at least some engagements could result in US tactical victories, allowing them to target mainland assets on at least some occasions. If the number of victories is high enough, then the US is probably winning. If the number of victories is low enough, then China is probably winning. But I very much doubt the number will be zero.

I think it's far more likely for the conflict to come down to the US committing strike packages of X assets and taking Y losses to get Z munitions through. The same calculation would of course be mirrored on the flip side. With the exact values of X and Y and Z (scaled against availability, reinforcement, replenishment, etc) determining who ultimately wins.

 

[Phead128]

Losing the war? Maybe. That being said, it seems foolish to neglect the possibility that at least some engagements could result in US tactical victories, allowing them to target mainland assets on at least some occasions. If the number of victories is high enough, then the US is probably winning. If the number of victories is low enough, then China is probably winning. But I very much doubt the number will be zero.

I think it's far more likely for the conflict to come down to the US committing strike packages of X assets and taking Y losses to get Z munitions through. The same calculation would of course be mirrored on the flip side. With the exact values of X and Y and Z (scaled against availability, reinforcement, replenishment, etc) determining who ultimately wins.

I'm saying you can obviate the need to intercept cruise missiles by short-legged J-10s by pushing the operational range of US cruise missiles range outwards with more long-range J-20s' assets to begin with. China doesn't ignore a non-zero chance of munitions penetrating through because it's increasing production of J-16s which can fulfill the same duty of intercepting cruise missiles and longer range than J-10s. The only argument you have is it already exist and costly to replace, which I tend to agree with.

 

[FriedRiceNSpice]

I'm saying you can obviate the need to intercept cruise missiles by short-legged J-10s by pushing the operational range of US cruise missiles range outwards with more long-range J-20s' assets to begin with. China doesn't ignore a non-zero chance of munitions penetrating through because it's increasing production of J-16s which can fulfill the same duty of intercepting cruise missiles and longer range than J-10s. The only argument you have is it already exist and costly to replace, which I tend to agree with.

Hoping not veering too far off topic here, but I think the days of using manned aircraft to intercept cruise missiles are numbered. Interception of aerial threats close to or inside one's one airspace can be taken over by unmanned platforms by the end of this decade, eliminating the need for shorter ranged manned fighters like the J-10.