Chinese air power thread 18

Read the forum code of contact

Member for

17 years 11 months

Posts: 1,010

In short the PLAAF and PLAN will need vast numbers of the latter to support both the Army (PLA) and Navy (PLAN). As without such a fleet it has no "hope" of even putting up a "credible defense" against the US and her Allies.

Sure, China does need big numbers and it's been procuring new planes at a pace that outpaces the actual size of its air forces. For a few decades now China has been procuring roughly 80 (give or take a dozen) combat planes per year. That figure hasn't actually changed much over the time, despite China having a much larger budget nowadays. Of course, what's different is that the planes today are all 4th and 5th gen planes. They're big and expensive. So in a way it's quite something that China managed to stick to same figures per year but now with much more capable planes.

And it's likely the planes today, such as Flankers, J-10 and J-20 last longer. 6000 flight hours or more shouldn't be hard to achieve. Which means these planes produced today are likely going to be used for 30-something years. Which in turn may suggest Chinese air forces numbering 2400 combat planes in active service. (80 times 30) That figure is bigger than what PLAAF and PLANAF operate today in their active units. So we are probably seeing a gradual increase in numbers.

That being said, expecting just J-31 and J-20 to be produced is not realistic for the forseeable future. Perhaps from 2025 onward, when J-31 is ready for full scale production (assuming PLAAF uses it) the number of 5th gen planes produced will eclipse the previous gen. And perhaps from 2030s we will see J10 procurement cease. Either to be superseded by another new gen fighter (single engined?) or larger number of some new J-20/J-31 variants? But I'm pretty confident we'll see at least another 300-400 more J-10s before its production run for China ends.

Sure, China does need big numbers and it's been procuring new planes at a pace that outpaces the actual size of its air forces. For a few decades now China has been procuring roughly 80 (give or take a dozen) combat planes per year. That figure hasn't actually changed much over the time, despite China having a much larger budget nowadays. Of course, what's different is that the planes today are all 4th and 5th gen planes. They're big and expensive. So in a way it's quite something that China managed to stick to same figures per year but now with much more capable planes.

And it's likely the planes today, such as Flankers, J-10 and J-20 last longer. 6000 flight hours or more shouldn't be hard to achieve. Which means these planes produced today are likely going to be used for 30-something years. Which in turn may suggest Chinese air forces numbering 2400 combat planes in active service. (80 times 30) That figure is bigger than what PLAAF and PLANAF operate today in their active units. So we are probably seeing a gradual increase in numbers.

That being said, expecting just J-31 and J-20 to be produced is not realistic for the forseeable future. Perhaps from 2025 onward, when J-31 is ready for full scale production (assuming PLAAF uses it) the number of 5th gen planes produced will eclipse the previous gen. And perhaps from 2030s we will see J10 procurement cease. Either to be superseded by another new gen fighter (single engined?) or larger number of some new J-20/J-31 variants? But I'm pretty confident we'll see at least another 300-400 more J-10s before its production run for China ends.

Never said the China would stop producing 4th Generation Fighters. As a matter of fact I would assume they would continue with the J-10's and Flanker Series. While production ramps up with the J-20 and then the J-31.

Yet, point here is China will need a good number of 5th Generation Fighters. In order to compete with the US and her Allies. Otherwise, her Military Build Up over the last decade would be for nothing and a waste.......(my point)

Member for

17 years 7 months

Posts: 4,951

They do not have fuel logistics to sustain that many active units unless they scale down to a majority J-10 fleet.

The PLAAF has overstretched its food chain since its origins. Old habits die hard.

Member for

24 years 2 months

Posts: 4,082

They do not have fuel logistics to sustain that many active units unless they scale down to a majority J-10 fleet.

The PLAAF has overstretched its food chain since its origins. Old habits die hard.

pardon, but why do you think so? Just a negative comment only to comment or do you have any source and facts? Even more why retire J-10 if there are still hundreds of older J-7/-8s around?

Member for

17 years 11 months

Posts: 1,010

Comment is beyond silly. There are many issues with PLAAF but being unable to sustain the fleet due to fuel (shortage?) isn't one of them. Fuel costs are negligible compared to other costs of sustaining and operating a fleet. And overall military usage of fuel even if in a total war scenario is again negligible compared to overall potential fuel inflow, even if China gets down just to own oilfields, let alone if various over the border inflows from Asia are accounted for as well.

Member for

24 years 2 months

Posts: 5,396

Fuel costs are NEVER negligible. Fuel is typically 15-20% of O&S cost. If fuel budget is cut, then training sorties get cut and pilot proficiency suffers.

Member for

17 years 7 months

Posts: 4,951

If you scale fuel against fleet numbers both the PLAAF and PLAN have grown considerably over the last two decades and continue to scale over the next. China is oil dependent yet see no issue with growing usage beyond imports growth. Further add their domestic consumption growth. They have an unavoidable problem. Their only hope is too get Western countries to scale back consumption... which explains their carbon agenda support.

Member for

24 years 2 months

Posts: 4,082

If you scale fuel against fleet numbers both the PLAAF and PLAN have grown considerably over the last two decades and continue to scale over the next. China is oil dependent yet see no issue with growing usage beyond imports growth. Further add their domestic consumption growth. They have an unavoidable problem. Their only hope is too get Western countries to scale back consumption... which explains their carbon agenda support.

Again; what's your source for this? especially since the overall fleet by pure numbers of tactical fighters has been reduced in recent years compared to the hundreds of J-6s, J-7s and J-8s.
So what makes you believe that there is an issue and even more please explain why the PLAAF should retire the J-10 even if there are still too many older J-7s and J-8s operational.

Your post simply does not make sense.

Member for

17 years 7 months

Posts: 4,951

Do the simple math. It is not rocket science to extrapolate fuel burn across a fleet assuming 100% availability rate. They are taking light fighters and replacing them with much heavier burn rates (and in reality we are ignoring what should be a sharply better availability rates) you see a major scaling of necessary fuel potential. Logistics are everything.

Member for

15 years 3 months

Posts: 1,912

Do the simple math. It is not rocket science to extrapolate fuel burn across a fleet assuming 100% availability rate. They are taking light fighters and replacing them with much heavier burn rates (and in reality we are ignoring what should be a sharply better availability rates) you see a major scaling of necessary fuel potential. Logistics are everything.

I thought the old turbojet powered Q-5, J-7/J-8 and H-6 are much worse when it comes to efficiency.

Member for

12 years 3 months

Posts: 5,905

Wiki:

Attachments

Member for

6 years 2 months

Posts: 550

WU Qian Ji, head engineer at CETEC officially confirmend that in 2013, metric radar could follow a F-22 at 450 Kms. This type of radars now cover the entire coast of China and are precise enough to target.

Take it with a pinch of salt, sill...

https://twitter.com/HenriKenhmann/st...29126636376064


Not that impressive, the radar on a Type 42 destroyer could follow an F-117 at 240km. But all these figures are without jamming and pertain only to detection, not targeting. So in hypothetical future war scenario, a stealth aircraft will simply fly in, fire an AARGM-ER and remove these radars.

Member for

12 years 1 month

Posts: 4,168

Things aren't that simple, it is not a video game. Noone likes to be dtected at 450 Kms. Detection from a radar can be sent to other radars working in higher bandwith that wil energize more the intended box. I have (and swedish also btw) seen F-117 from a ground radar in France (Evreux). Of course not precise enough to lock, but sufficient to send a patrol. Which in defensive mode will certainly lit up their radars that will be detected by F-35 (or any other modern "red") etc. etc. Even a well manipulated antiquated SA2/8 can be and are real threats. One do not play pilots lives on gambles...

Member for

19 years 9 months

Posts: 12,109

Why would F-22's go near a known Chinese radar site, especially one which is claimed to have an advertised Counter LO role, without their Luneburg lens's installed?

Member for

15 years 3 months

Posts: 1,912

Regarding the 450 km value, there is actually a whole set of slides from the presentation but only a few (in larger resolution) have been translated and summarized - https://i.imgur.com/RX8GOTi.jpg

EDIT: Slide in a larger size. Unfortunately, I found only 5 in a decent resolution.

https://i.imgur.com/3Z6hpCH.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/Y4yVngL.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/ODM1xcV.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/RTC5Wis.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/ti6gSO0.jpg

Member for

8 years 6 months

Posts: 906


Not that impressive, the radar on a Type 42 destroyer could follow an F-117 at 240km. But all these figures are without jamming and pertain only to detection, not targeting. So in hypothetical future war scenario, a stealth aircraft will simply fly in, fire an AARGM-ER and remove these radars.

Well Metric wave band radar is essentially immune against ARM by the fact that no interferometric antenna of metric waveband can fit inside missile. The fighter may need usual land attack missile.
---

Regardless the detection claim is unfortunately sketchy especially regarding to frequencies being used, target aspect, environmental condition especially presence of multipath which may affect apparent RCS. One caveat however is that usually during peacetime F-22 is equipped with luneburg lenses.

Member for

6 years 2 months

Posts: 550

Well Metric wave band radar is essentially immune against ARM by the fact that no interferometric antenna of metric waveband can fit inside missile. The fighter may need usual land attack missile.
---

Regardless the detection claim is unfortunately sketchy especially regarding to frequencies being used, target aspect, environmental condition especially presence of multipath which may affect apparent RCS. One caveat however is that usually during peacetime F-22 is equipped with luneburg lenses.


They don't need to fit inside the missile because AARGMs have MMW terminal guidance too, all it needs a rough steer from the energy of the transmissions, or from the launch aircraft. The other problem with these large metric radars is that they tend to be stationary, so even a cruise missile can target them.

Member for

8 years 6 months

Posts: 906


They don't need to fit inside the missile because AARGMs have MMW terminal guidance too, all it needs a rough steer from the energy of the transmissions,

Which they cannot capture in the first place due to the lack of suitable antenna. There is reason why radar related books mention that ARM is impractical in metric wave band.


or from the launch aircraft. The other problem with these large metric radars is that they tend to be stationary, so even a cruise missile can target them.

Yeah "Tend" maybe for HF. while VHF and L-band is pretty mobile.

Member for

17 years 6 months

Posts: 25,376


Replying to the question of journalists on the type of the fighter he would like to fly the most, one of the members of the National Assembly, also a pilot in the naval force of the Chinese Navy, said without hesitation: "of course it is the J-20 ... »
Translated from French by Microsoft

Répondant à la question des journalistes sur le modèle du chasseur qu’il aimerait piloter le plus, l’un des députés de l’Assemblée nationale populaire, également pilote dans la force d’aviation de la marine chinoise, dit sans hésitation : « Bien sûr que c’est le J-20... »

https://twitter.com/HenriKenhmann/status/1106966286053986304