PLAAF Breaking News (including articles with Pictures or videos)

AndrewS

Brigadier
Registered Member
All that being said, it's certainly POSSIBLE the rumored ramp-ups have indeed happened. But that'd imply some tectonic changes, as well. It'd imply that PLA is really worried and potentially expecting a hot war within just years; and that they've decided to increase the overall PLAAF size by dozens of percent in a very short period of time.

Given that the US is itching for another Cold War competition, I would expect some sort of Chinese military buildup.

After all, China has consistently spent a modest 2% of GDP on the military for over 20 years now, whereas the US and Russia were routinely at twice that level, as per the SIPRI figures.

If China were to increase military spending by only 0.5% to 2.5%, that means an extra $75 Billion per year.

The Su-35 price worked out as $80 Million each if I recall correctly.
So I would expect J-16s and J-15s to cost something similar.
That works out as a total of $6.4 Billion, which is well within financial capacity.

And that doesn't take into account how China was already taking delivery of roughly 100 jets per year previously.

---

As for the J-10, I'm not surprised by its absence.

If we look at the Chinese Air Force now, they have enough shorter-ranged aircraft like the J-10, but need more heavyweight aircraft like the J-20 or Flankers for distant power projection.

---

But overall, I think they would be better off with a higher J-20 production rate at the expense of fewer Flankers.
If the numbers are accurate, maybe politics got in the way?
 

plawolf

Lieutenant General
I agree.

But the economics of a Hardened Aircraft Shelters versus cruise missiles doesn't look too bad.

A HAS costs $3.2M in Korea, whilst a Tomahawk or JASSM is around $1.3 Million.

So if air defences can shoot down 70% of incoming missiles, it's about break-even in terms of the incoming cruise missiles versus HAS protected by SAMs.

So how much does the SAMs you are using cost? Also, you are only counting the cost of the shelter and not what is inside it.

The value in HAS is not the monetary price of enemy missiles, but rather than opportunity cost imposed on attacking forces in terms of munitions they can carry.

An enemy CSG or SSGN has a finite number of VLS cells. With HAS, the enemy need to use at least one tomahawk per HAS, that adds up to a lot of VLS cells not carrying other munitions like SAMs just to take out one air base.

But in reality most of a fleet’s VLS cells would have already been allocated to SAMs, which leaves a handful of cells for tomahawks. HAS just makes it abundantly clear that an enemy fleet doesn’t have any chance of pulling off a Pearl Habour to inflict large losses on the PLA in a surprise attack. Which is a form of effective deterrence.
 

Inst

Captain
Considering F-35 production is more or less at the peak rate at which the program was aiming for, while J-20 production rate is still relatively early, I think 30 per year, merely 4 years after starting LRIP is quite a fantastic production rate to be honest.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Strategically speaking, the J-20 needs to be produced in numbers of at least 1/4th that of the F-35 (assuming 2:1 parity, which is extremely aggressive and far from guaranteed). Numbers at least 1/2th of the F-35 would be great.
 

Inst

Captain
The value in HAS is not the monetary price of enemy missiles, but rather than opportunity cost imposed on attacking forces in terms of munitions they can carry.

Realistically speaking, an obvious trick with HAS is that they're cheaper than the planes themselves. This implies that one plane might have multiple hangars to make it relatively expensive to take down all the hangars.
 

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Strategically speaking, the J-20 needs to be produced in numbers of at least 1/4th that of the F-35 (assuming 2:1 parity, which is extremely aggressive and far from guaranteed). Numbers at least 1/2th of the F-35 would be great.

My point is that given the stage at which J-20 as a program is at, an annual production rate of 30 aircraft is pretty good.

Obviously if that is the peak production rate they are going for then that would be a different matter.
 

siegecrossbow

General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Due to current geopolitical climate I think China is at a point where it needs to mass produce J-20s as a deterrent. I’d even accept importing more Russian engines to create a parallel production line if not enough WS-10s can be produced.
 

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
Not very likely, until we get some more confirmation about the source. Without it, this is just another wild rumor, the kind that've seen come and go for years/decades.

Or perhaps it's a matter of a mistranslation. Like with that recent 30 tons of thrust for J11B idea, which then turned out to be someone understanding something wrong.

Why is it not likely? Not because the numbers themselves are unattainable, but because it's not likely such a hike up would happen in such a short period of time.

30 J-20 in a year is actually least unlikely of the claims. The plane has been in production ramp up for some time, other similar programs in the US have ramped up to near such figures in similar timeframes. And it's a highly capable plane, a unique plane, which may well be deemed worthy of such ramp up.

20 J-15 is certainly doable, but it seems a bit exaggerated. Because - why the need for so many in one year? It doesn't make much sense to start production one year only to have it nearly cut off the next year. Makes much more sense to have 15 produced in, say, 2019, 15 more in 2020, 15 more 2021 and so on. To maintain the same production, maximizing effectiveness.

And certainly the need for further J-15 planes is not going to explode overnight, as it is limited by the carriers.
Carrier 001 has its entire wing ready. I guess PLANAF could do with a few more planes as a backup.
Carrier 002 is going to start training with its airwing sometime during this year. So it will need some 12 to at most 24 this year. And it won't have first mission deployment before 2021, for which it probably will be wise to have all 24 planes available. A dozen extra planes for training and attrition are also advisable.
Carrier 003 is likely going to be launched in 2021, then commissioned perhaps in 2023 and start training with its first air group elements in 2024, perhaps reach full capability in 2025.
So by 2025 the PLANAF will have a need for some 24+24+36 planes for its carriers plus another, say, 30-ish for training and attrition. So 115 planes. 15 J-15 per year would be enough to meet that figure in that timeframe. Unless, of course, carrier 004 is going to built and reach full capability in 2028 (that'd plausible providing we actually see first modules being built somewhere by the end of this year) So by 2028 that means 15 J-15 per year would yield 45 airframes, a nice number for the need of 36 planes for the 004 airwing and having yet again more for attrition. Anyway, 15 per year is plausible, but 20 per year doesn't seem as plausible unless we're really going to see an even more accelerated carrier building plan. And also, what about J-31? By 2028 one would certainly expect at least two dozen to be in active service. Which means roughly two dozen fewer J-15 needed.

60 J-16 per year is certainly the wildest claim. For the sole reason that we've had decades now of SAC building various flankers. And it has never really went over 30 flankers per year. That's including the production rate from the moment SAC switched from making J11B to making J16 (this would mean 60 J16 plus 20 J15 for a whopping 80 flankers in a year)
Again, ramping up is fine, as needs change, but going from 30 to 80 within a year (or at best two) is simply implausible.
While our ability to track units getting new planes such as J16 has deteriorated during the last two or so years, as fewer and fewer images trickle in, such a 250% jump is still unlikely. And what about J10? As a smaller and somewhat simpler plane, it's bound to be produced in at least similar numbers to heavy fighters. So even though it was omitted from this rumor list - are we to guess then J10 production also ramped up to... what - 60 or 80 airframes per year?
Personally, it seems more sensible, especially with J20 being around as the big fighter option as well, that J16's production rate won't change that much from what it was - and will continue by 25 or 30 airframes per year for several more years - until J31 derived plane is ready to replace it in SAC's production lines.

All that being said, it's certainly POSSIBLE the rumored ramp-ups have indeed happened. But that'd imply some tectonic changes, as well. It'd imply that PLA is really worried and potentially expecting a hot war within just years; and that they've decided to increase the overall PLAAF size by dozens of percent in a very short period of time.

I agree that the Flanker production rate seems rather high, though I'm not going to dismiss it out of hand, unless we have better information regarding who the actual source was.

There are two primary reasons for this:

1. When was the last time we had any kind of solid rumours or update about what SAC's production rate is like? A production rate of 80 Flankers a year is certainly very high, but it depends on what the real preceding production rate was before it. Are we confident in our estimates of annual production rate from the last few years to make that call?

2. 80 Flankers a year is high, but it also isn't disproportionate with PLA combat aviation requirements. Looking at the number of older aircraft that need to be replaced with modern J-16s -- including J-8IIs, older Su-27SKs/J-11As, MKKs -- that is a decent number of aircraft, of which likely only a portion will be replaced with J-20s, but the rest will be replaced by Flankers. IMO sustaining say, 4-5 years of 80 Flankers/year production, would not be the naval equivalent of recent PLAN destroyer production putting out some 35+ modern destroyers within the space of a decade.
 

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
Due to current geopolitical climate I think China is at a point where it needs to mass produce J-20s as a deterrent. I’d even accept importing more Russian engines to create a parallel production line if not enough WS-10s can be produced.

If we are talking about J-20As powered by Al-31s or WS-10s, I do not think the capacity of the powerplants is a bottleneck.

Rather, every other aspect of building, inducting, and operating a 5th generation fighter is the bottleneck which requires investment for expansion of capacity and human resources.
 

siegecrossbow

General
Staff member
Super Moderator
If we are talking about J-20As powered by Al-31s or WS-10s, I do not think the capacity of the powerplants is a bottleneck.

Rather, every other aspect of building, inducting, and operating a 5th generation fighter is the bottleneck which requires investment for expansion of capacity and human resources.

I think the current capacity for Taihang engines is around 100 engines a year. Considering that J-16s and J-10Cs are still in production (and J-11Bs will need spares) this puts a cap on how many J-20s they can produce in a year.

As for operation fifth gen fighters, I think that once the pilots in Wuhu are fully acquainted with the plane they can share their operational knowledge with other bases and boost operational capacity.
 

Figaro

Senior Member
Registered Member
I think the current capacity for Taihang engines is around 100 engines a year. Considering that J-16s and J-10Cs are still in production (and J-11Bs will need spares) this puts a cap on how many J-20s they can produce in a year.

As for operation fifth gen fighters, I think that once the pilots in Wuhu are fully acquainted with the plane they can share their operational knowledge with other bases and boost operational capacity.
100 engines a year is pretty low (especially given the number of double engined fighters in the PLAAF) ... are you sure this is still the rate in 2020? I would be surprised if Liming has not expanded their production capacity in recent years, especially given the maturity of the Taihang.
 
Top