Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion

The Military Issues & History Forum is a venue to discuss issues relating to the military aspects of the Indian Armed Forces, whether the past, present or future. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
Post Reply
YashG
BRFite
Posts: 936
Joined: 22 Apr 2017 00:10

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread

Post by YashG »

Manish_P wrote: +1 Just today there was a detailed investigative thread (with images of the companies connections) on Twitter on how just 5 years ago, the Chinese bought majority stake (gradually in parts) in an European UAV company (an Italian-German JV) via an entire shell companies system spread across 3-4 countries and each ending after at least 3 layers of companies deep in China MIC.

They did this for absorbing the Tech for each and every single piece of the component in the UAV line (right down to the nuts and bolts), and in 5 years managed to replicate the entire line of the original company's UAVs completely in China.
I think this is an important development. World has been a cookie jar till now for China, from where it freely accessed knowledge and markets without having to give anything back. But this tap is slowly closing down. Chinese society is very conformist and not experimentative (given its governance). So replication, innovation by repition comes to them natively. But a lot of innovation requires lateral, creative thinking and even knowledge networks. Minus the access to knowledge networks, Chinese tech advancement should be severely impeded.

I've wondered how long before gaps in chinese tech progression start to appear ? Alternatively US cutoff space collab with China long back but China has galloped ahead, way ahead. So while chinese tech advancement engine may start to sputter in 5-10 yrs from now, I could be wrong too. I still wonder.
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18190
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread

Post by Rakesh »

:lol:

https://twitter.com/TheWolfpackIN/statu ... 44704?s=20 ---> Chinese regime media says China’s warships will show up along USA's coast soon & Chinese navy (PLAN) will now conduct freedom of navigation (FONOPs) near US naval bases worldwide, including near mainland US bases.
Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14331
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread

Post by Aditya_V »

Rakesh wrote: :lol:

https://twitter.com/TheWolfpackIN/statu ... 44704?s=20 ---> Chinese regime media says China’s warships will show up along USA's coast soon & Chinese navy (PLAN) will now conduct freedom of navigation (FONOPs) near US naval bases worldwide, including near mainland US bases.
The more I feel the Chinese will finally go Imperial Japan way, the Japanese made all the same moves before WW2, for people who keep calling us cowards in other threads it's best to see WW2 and why Britain and US came out of with soo less causalities , it's a complex game of not giving in and showing that we are a dangerous opponent at the same time waiting for the enemy to get into another conflict and exhaust themselves.

There is something called war weariness, even Saddam Hussein 's Iraq, US encouraged him to attack the new regime in Iran and then promptly supplied Iran with weapon spares through Israel and made sure both sides exhausted themselves. Turned ablind eye to Iraqi attacking a US ship killing 36 sailors
Use of Chemical weapons and then finally took Iraq on after the invasion of Kuwait since Iraq had completely exhausted themselves with Iran and even the Israelis could bomb their reactors.

In WW2, Luftwaffe pilots became war very and Britain waited till the Luftwaffe had exhausted itself in the Eastern front before bombing German cities to rubble by that time Germans had done soo many atrocities in the Soviet Union that it became a Total war and Germans had to completely concentrate there.

Clearly today we do not have the military advantage to start a conflict on our own. War must have clear objectives and fought at the right time. If the enemy attacks its totally different ball game.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread

Post by brar_w »

kit wrote:...
PLAAFs qualitative and quantitative makeup in the 2040's will likely be shaped by how much progress they make in propulsion this decade (say 2022-2035 timeframe). If the domestic engines for the J-20, and the J-31 and others deliver reasonable performance and reliability, then there is no reason to think that between those two, the J-10 and other Flanker clones, they can't be on a 100-150 fighter / year build/buy rate. Most of these will be for domestic consumption as none of those platforms are currently exported. They are in competition with the US that currently has an annual 4-5th gen fighter production capacity well in excess of 200 aircraft. This would be a known gap for them and you don't want to be in a strategic long term competition with a more qualitatively advanced (the US is for now) adversary that may have a 2:1 or better production advantage for these advanced systems. Right now, it seems that PLAAF modernization is second to PLAN modernization needs. This could change over the next 10-20 years.
YashG
BRFite
Posts: 936
Joined: 22 Apr 2017 00:10

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread

Post by YashG »

brar_w wrote:then there is no reason to think that between those two, the J-10 and other Flanker clones, they can't be on a 100-150 fighter / year build/buy rate. Most of these will be for domestic consumption as none of those platforms are currently exported. They are in competition with the US that currently has an annual 4-5th gen fighter production capacity well in excess of 200 aircraft.
In WW2 it was the production rate of US and UK that won them the day. Germany started with a higher number of aircrafts but was soon outdone. And did not touch a good annual rate till 1943,44,45. Spitfire supermarine was a very ordinary plane that became a war legend because it was produced in great numbers.

Wars are won at the production floor.
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18190
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread

Post by Rakesh »

YashG, that statement is true only when the production floor in question is able to churn out aircraft that pass QC.

Can China make that claim?
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread

Post by brar_w »

YashG wrote:Wars are won at the production floor.
Industrial capacity (and the downstream ability to transition, train, etc) is also a very powerful deterrent. If you have an industry that is delivering triple digit advanced combat aircraft a year then that has to be built into any calculus (you can shut the export taps off and focus on domestic modernization relatively quickly if needed in a pinch) by your opponent. Conversely, if your opponent knows that it takes you 10-12 years to buy existing aircraft developed by someone else (look at the MMRCA tamasha) then that only emboldens them and increases the probability of conflict. One of the reasons the Pentagon developed and ordered the F-15EX (and vetoed senior USAF leadership) was so that the USAF could maintain two combat aircraft suppliers through the 2020's (leading up to 6th gen competition) as Boeing would have had to wind up the F-15 production line after deliveries to Qatar. Peacetime industrial capacity matters more than most would think.
Rakesh wrote:YashG, that statement is true only when the production floor in question is able to churn out aircraft that pass QC.
Like everyone else they will get better over time and since they have multiple hot 4th and 5th gen production lines already these learnings will cross pollinate. Setting their hype and propaganda aside, it is reasonable to assume that they will be capable of churning out a fair number of decent number of 4+ generation and even 5th generation aircraft in the coming years. Will these be the best 4+ or 5th gen in the world? No. Their US competitors have nearly half a century of hands on experience with stealth design and nearly 4 decades with stealth production.

But they will still be capable and they will have them in increasing quantity.
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18190
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread

Post by Rakesh »

Brar, the lead that the US has is challenging - but not impossible - to overcome.

I do agree they will be capable, but prevailing & winning is another story.
YashG
BRFite
Posts: 936
Joined: 22 Apr 2017 00:10

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread

Post by YashG »

Rakeshji i have no knowledge of the quality of chinese maal beyond certain doubts as read publically on the level of their quality but none whatsoever about factory floor QC.

But how bad is the quality of their planes and will it remain so even 5 years down the line also ? When they could be building 100 planes an year.
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12187
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread

Post by Pratyush »

Rakesh wrote:YashG, that statement is true only when the production floor in question is able to churn out aircraft that pass QC.

Can China make that claim?
With the numbers of aircrafts developed and put into production by China in the last 30 years. I will not be asking that question anymore.

WRT engine's I can still question that ability.
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18190
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread

Post by Rakesh »

Engines are part and parcel of the aircraft. No engine = no aircraft.

But having a plethora of fighter aircraft - in multiple production lines - means nothing, if they are not up to par. I am not dismissing the J-10, J-11 or J-20, but how good are they really? We cannot even verify the production numbers, because every information that comes out of China is sanitized for ChiCom Invincibility.

We are connecting dots and making assumptions on what ChiCom puts out there for us to see. Why does ChiCom want us to see this? What is the purpose?
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread

Post by brar_w »

Rakesh wrote:But having a plethora of fighter aircraft - in multiple production lines - means nothing, if they are not up to par. I am not dismissing the J-10, J-11 or J-20, but how good are they really?
It is not about them making them invincible. It is about expecting them to, over time, become better through the process of iteration. Both with 4+ generation aircraft (J-10 in particular) and 5th generation aircraft (J-31 being carrier borne will teach them new things about sustaining LO materials in harsh environments). So any reasonable strategy has to assume that they do a good job in some areas, and struggle in others while they continue to learn and improve (at what rate is more academic than an operationally relevant as planners have to look at decades and not short term). You have to assume that their weapons work reasonably well in most areas as a planning strategy since planners can't just sit on the notion that they aren't that great because there is no way for them to independently validate that (100%). If they don't then that's great but you aren't going to nase your national security planning on the notion that they are just crap and all hype. Nor will you base it on them having completely leapfrogged in areas that have taken decades of dedicated R&D, testing, infrastructure, mass production and operational fielding to master (like stealth, AESA radars, or other advanced components).

Produce enough of these things and you'll eventually get a hang of it and even if you are half competent you'll begin applying some of the lessons learnt. Could all these be crap and these are just sitting targets for their opponents to shoot down in war? Not sure but that's not really something you plan for (i.e. assuming that they have shoddy QC and make crappy aircraft). The point is that they'll have in excess of 200 J-20's within the next decade and if their engine proves out to be successful they could significantly increase this production rate while also introducing the J-31. If the J-31 becomes real and is adopted then it is not too far fetched to assume that the PLAAF (and naval air component) could have between 500-1,000 J-20/J-31's by late 2030s. If your decision cycle is 10-20 years, then you have to plan now for that. It is not a coincidence that the USAF wants to have the F-22 replacement fielded in the early 2030s. Most assessments put the Chinese J-20 fleet at exceeding USAF F-22 fleet by that timeframe.

So yes, one can argue as to why China shows what it shows. But most air-forces will show their new fighters or highlight their tech development. If you are building aircraft at XX or XXX a year, and passing them off to units then it is not going to be possible to hide that modernization from your opponents who are constantly looking at your air-bases to see what's sitting on the flight line. But their aircraft don't need to be on par with US, French or even Russian designs (of equal generation) for them to be effective in meeting their needs and even if the J-20 is only half as capable as an F-22, you still will have to take notice if they are building a few dozen of those a year (when they get to those rates).

Also, while forums focus 99.9% on fighter aircraft the breadth of PLAAF modernization is also worth considering. Its their airlift capability and capacity, their AEW&C capability and capacity, their bomber force, and their unmanned force that is all growing in quality and quantity (one can argue about pace and quality of this but looked at a 10, 20 or 30 year horizon that is trivial) while we're here just talking about 1000 fighters etc. All that growth is going to influence the requirements for the IAF and also the fighter requirements.
Last edited by brar_w on 12 Sep 2021 22:42, edited 1 time in total.
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18190
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread

Post by Rakesh »

Brar, I am not stating that these aircraft are crap. But I will set aside the ChiCom propaganda that we must dhoti shiver at the hundreds of aircraft that China is producing which will overwhelm enemy defenses.

They have certainly excelled in production and that is to be commended. Something for India to introspect on. They are struggling in other areas i.e. turbofans is a good example. Over time, they will overcome that hurdle as well. But how long that will take is still left to be seen.

Their most advanced aircraft to date - the J-20 - initially flew with an AL-31 turbofan variant. That was replaced with the WS-10, which in turn is to be replaced with the WS-15 which will enable the aircraft to supercruise. In the future, they will state that a WS-15 powered J-20 will out maneuver and defeat the F-22 or F-35 in combat. And we are supposed to believe that, just because they claim it as fact? By some divine miracle, the Shenyang Liming Aircraft Engine Company has excelled the technical prowess that General Electric and Pratt & Whitney have attained over decades of R&D and manufacture of turbofans? Let us separate the wheat from the chaff and look at the larger picture.

I certainly am not underestimating the PLAAF or the ChiCom, but I am not going to believe everything they say as gospel truth.
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12187
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread

Post by Pratyush »

As long as they have access to AL31 and derivative engine's. The PLAF can build a capable force while the domestic engine capacity matures.

Having said so the J10 is already being produced with the domestic engine.

So that part of the equation has been solved by the PRC. If reliability is an issue. They will accept that and perfect it while the engine remains in production.

Second, even if the fighters in service are inferior to any thing IAF will have. The tanking capacity and the numbers available will give them the initiative. Add to that the numbers of anti access area denial weapons they are going to build. The PLAF will be able to dictate the terms of engagement with the IAF. Unless the IAF has a similar sized force. Remember that we will have to fight a two front war.

While quad alliance is still a twinkle in some one's eyes.
Last edited by Pratyush on 12 Sep 2021 22:54, edited 1 time in total.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread

Post by brar_w »

Rakesh wrote:Their most advanced aircraft to date - the J-20 - initially flew with an AL-31 turbofan variant. That was replaced with the WS-10, which in turn is to be replaced with the WS-15 which will enable the aircraft to supercruise. In the future, they will state that a WS-15 powered J-20 will out maneuver and defeat the F-22 or F-35 in combat. And we are supposed to believe that, just because they claim it as fact? By some divine miracle, the Shenyang Liming Aircraft Engine Company has excelled the technical prowess that General Electric and Pratt & Whitney have attained over decades of R&D and manufacture of turbofans? Let us separate the wheat from the chaff and look at the larger picture.
Most planners wouldn't care much for that propaganda or claims. They will independently analyze what capability they are developing or putting out. Even if you assume that the WS-15 equipped J-20's don't match the F-119 equipped F-22's, you still need to look at how capable they are and what challenges they will present during conflict. My point is that even if they are half as capable they will still present a major challenge if they exist in quantity and they continue to produce it. It's got range, a decent IWB, and with electronic upgrades it will evolve to a very decent tactical strike platform with a giant leap in RCS reduction over the 4th gen aircraft they currently produce. The RCS comparison to US 5GFA is purely academic and not very operationally relevant (unless they begin to make huge leaps in wideband all aspect stealth) for anyone besides the US (or those who use F35s). For China its a win if they've made huge leaps over the last lot of aircraft they designed (J-10) since that means that their next generation fighters (J-20 and J-31) are significantly more survivable. So if they can make those leaps, and continue to improve then they get a much better ROI when they buy the J-20 as opposed to buying more J-10's. And that has to count for something particularly when we're staring at a 200 J-20 force by the mid 2030's as a "reasonable" assumption.

When you're looking ahead a couple of decades out, you have to kind of assume that whatever organic capability they have (whether that is hyped or not) will be improved upon and they will continue to make dramatic progress in some areas while probably still struggling to meet goals elsewhere. So either you have a huge qualitative advantage, an asymmetric capability, a quantitative advantage, or seek a conventional deterrent through other systems. Whatever it is has to account for them being a more modern and more capable force and recognize that the pace with which they are doing so is not linear.
Last edited by brar_w on 12 Sep 2021 22:58, edited 1 time in total.
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12187
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread

Post by Pratyush »

I watched this a few days ago. It discussed pretty much the same thing that we are discussing about from the Indian POV.

It might be a good insight into how much the PLAF will evolve over the next few decades.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread

Post by brar_w »

Rakesh, can you please move the last few posts to the Chinese thread? I think a few of us can focus on doing a quick assessment of what they've built, fielded and upgraded in the last decade to 15 years and what they are planning to do over the next decade. That should give us a little better insight into what their strategy seems to be as far as PLAAF modernization is concerned and will help inform other discussions. PLAAF modernization is clearly a decade or more behind the PLAN modernization and some of it is due to lack of tech maturity needed for future systems but also part is also likely due to them prioritizing naval expansion.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread

Post by brar_w »

Some data on PLAAF modernization:

Source

Image
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18190
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread

Post by Rakesh »

brar_w wrote:Rakesh, can you please move the last few posts to the Chinese thread?
I have moved a bunch. Please review the Indian Air Force thread and let me know if you want me to remove any more posts. Thanks.
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18190
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread

Post by Rakesh »

brar_w wrote:Most planners wouldn't care much for that propaganda or claims. They will independently analyze what capability they are developing or putting out. Even if you assume that the WS-15 equipped J-20's don't match the F-119 equipped F-22's, you still need to look at how capable they are and what challenges they will present during conflict. My point is that even if they are half as capable they will still present a major challenge if they exist in quantity and they continue to produce it. It's got range, a decent IWB, and with electronic upgrades it will evolve to a very decent tactical strike platform with a giant leap in RCS reduction over the 4th gen aircraft they currently produce. The RCS comparison to US 5GFA is purely academic and not very operationally relevant (unless they begin to make huge leaps in wideband all aspect stealth) for anyone besides the US (or those who use F35s). For China its a win if they've made huge leaps over the last lot of aircraft they designed (J-10) since that means that their next generation fighters (J-20 and J-31) are significantly more survivable. So if they can make those leaps, and continue to improve then they get a much better ROI when they buy the J-20 as opposed to buying more J-10's. And that has to count for something particularly when we're staring at a 200 J-20 force by the mid 2030's as a "reasonable" assumption.

When you're looking ahead a couple of decades out, you have to kind of assume that whatever organic capability they have (whether that is hyped or not) will be improved upon and they will continue to make dramatic progress in some areas while probably still struggling to meet goals elsewhere. So either you have a huge qualitative advantage, an asymmetric capability, a quantitative advantage, or seek a conventional deterrent through other systems. Whatever it is has to account for them being a more modern and more capable force and recognize that the pace with which they are doing so is not linear.
I look at the threat perception posed by the PLAAF (200+ J-20s in the mid-2030s as you advised in your post above), by the acquisitions that the IAF (and the Indian Naval Air Arm) acquires or is acquiring;

a] 36 Rafales - a fourth generation fighter
b] 100+ (at minimum) Tejas Mk2 - another fourth generation fighter
c] 114 MRFA - a phoren fourth generation fighter acquisition
d] 270+ Super Sukhoi upgrade - another fourth generation fighter
e] 36 MRCBF - another fourth generation fighter
f] X number of TEDBF - another fourth generation fighter
g] X number of AMCA - the ONLY fifth generation fighter on this list and no ETA when it will join.

We are all aware that Points C and E are currently up in the air due to budgetary issues, but I will still list it in there because they are active acquisitions. Point G is no where on the horizon and thus all the IAF is looking at is presently 4th generation fighters. So when I see the IAF (and the Indian Naval Air Arm) acquiring fourth generation platforms and then compare it to the hyperbole that comes from the PLAAF and the PLAN, I have to think just how dangerous the J-20 and J-31 really are and how out classed the IAF and IN will be in a future conflict? And the above is all the current acquisitions that the IAF and IN has for the foreseeable future.

But what is equally surprising is that all the OEMs who are participating in the fighter contest for the IAF and the IN, will vehemently claim that their platform can stand not just toe to toe against a J-20 or a J-31, but even prevail over them. Are we to assume that these OEMs are lying and just want to make a sale? I highly doubt that, especially when it comes to Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Airbus and Dassault.

The only fifth generation acquisition platform on the horizon - for the IAF - is the AMCA and heaven only knows when that is coming. No F-35, Su-57 or Su-75 is coming. India walked out of the only fifth generation fighter program - the FGFA. I don't see India collaborating with South Korea, Japan or even Turkey on their fifth generation platforms either. I can understand if the J-20 and J-31 is on the same league as the F-22 and F-35, but is it? If that was the case, I am 100% confident that the IAF would be cancelling all 4th generation acquisitions - local and phoren - and then going in for a fifth generation fighter.

Back in the 80s, when the PAF acquired the F-16...it resulted in the acquisition of the MiG-23MF, then the Mirage 2000 and finally the MiG-29. Today, the PLAAF is inducting J-20s and J-31s and the same IAF is still inducting fourth generation fighters. Something (PLAAF claims) just does not connect here (IAF acquisitions).

So when the IAF is staring at 200+ J-20s in the mid-2030s, are these above IAF acquisitions - especially the numbers - going to come to naught? Are these above acquisitions then a waste of money? If so, is the senior leadership of the IAF at Air HQ looking at the PLAAF threat all wrong? Is the IAF going to lose all these platforms in a future conflict against the J-20 or J-31? Or could it be that Air HQ knows something more than what we on BRF, the media and the public know?

Exercise Gagan Shakti was an eye opener for me in terms of the attrition losses that the IAF factors for a full scale conflict. When I saw those numbers, I was quite frankly shocked. It was not pretty, but the flip side of Exercise Gagan Shakti was that the objective was achieved. So while those numbers were gut wrenching, the IAF looks not just at airframe and personnel losses...but rather meeting mission objectives. In a future conflict - especially against the PLAAF - the IAF will lose a significant number of aircraft and aircrew. But the real measure of success will be measured in whether the IAF achieved the objective. That is what ultimately matters at the end of the day, at least to the IAF anyway.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread

Post by brar_w »

Rakesh wrote:I look at the threat perception posed by the PLAAF (200+ J-20s in the mid-2030s as you advised in your post above), by the acquisitions that the IAF (and the Indian Naval Air Arm) acquires or is acquiring
Yes that's a likely outcome though the number could be higher depending on how much success they have with their engine. However this is just one aspect. Far more than 200 J-10C's will be bought b/w now and then, and their advanced Flanker clones as well. Some reports last year indicated that they were planning on upping the J-16 production rate to 40+ aircraft a year. Pretty safe to assume anywhere from 500-800 new combat aircraft over the next 10-11 years as a very conservative estimate , and all of those would be advanced fourth (AESA radars, data-links, PGM's etc) or J-20/31. These will be replacing 3rd or much older early 4th gen types or adding new capability.

This isn't unrealistic. They have produced previous generation aircraft at greater than 200 units / year so it wouldn't be surprising if they aim to achieve a steady state of 120-150 4th+5th gen fighters a year at some point in the 2020s. In fact if the Japanese assessment of their current 4th/5th gen build up is accurate then they are nearly 70-80% there already (to get to those rates). This could be 40-50 J-16's, an equal number of J-10's, and a smaller J-20 batch each year. That's the type of increased pace that we could expect by mid to late this decade under the hypothesis that their airpower modernization is trailing their naval expansion by about a decade. Something worth considering and discussing.

Others here can also do some research and post if they can find some accurate or rough numbers on historic production rates for J-10, J-16, and J-15.
If so, is the senior leadership of the IAF at Air HQ looking at the PLAAF threat all wrong? Is the IAF going to lose all these platforms in a future conflict against the J-20 or J-31? Or could it be that Air HQ knows something more than what we on BRF, the media and the public know?
No I don't think they are looking at this wrong. They are under resourced. This is going to require the IAF equipping itself at much higher rates with Tejas, AMCA, and anything else that comes through the pipeline. All I am doing is setting some baseline expectation on PLAAF modernization. What we are staring at is a modernization program that could potentially deliver a thousand or more advanced aircraft over the next dozen or so years. And they aren't putting brakes on things like AEW, UAV/UCAV's, bomber modernization etc. So the resources that will be required to strengthen the IAF will need a serious boost over the next 10-15 years.
Last edited by brar_w on 13 Sep 2021 04:06, edited 1 time in total.
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18190
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread

Post by Rakesh »

Brar, I agree with you on the part of replacing their older generation aircraft with newer and better airframes. And that fact is not lost on the IAF. But the IAF counter to that is 114 MRFA plus 100+ Tejas Mk2 plus 36 Rafales plus 272 upgraded Su-30MKIs. That is nowhere close to the 500 - 800 new combat aircraft that the PLAAF is planning to acquire.

Why is there a disconnect here? Or will those numbers increase?
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread

Post by brar_w »

Rakesh wrote:But the IAF counter to that is 114 MRFA plus 100+ Tejas Mk2 plus 36 Rafales plus 272 upgraded Su-30MKIs.?
The 114 MRFA (MMRCA etc) is not happening. Tejas MK2 can't come soon enough and will be a game changer from a quality/quantity mix perspective. 36 Rafale's are great but likely 2-3 times that needed given they likely have a dual role (this quantity requirement isn't controversial as the IAF asked for as much decade+ ago). 272 MKI's? Are those already delivered or will they be buying 272 more in the coming decade?
kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6278
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread

Post by kit »

Rakesh wrote: That is nowhere close to the 500 - 800 new combat aircraft that the PLAAF is planning to acquire.

Why is there a disconnect here? Or will those numbers increase?
The chief puts his faith in new indigenous tech that can be "surprising" to potential foes in the battlefield., Nothing of this is available in the public domain. But I think given Indias talent pool there would be disruptive technologies and asymmetric capabilities built in to counter chinks numbers. My prediction is India's drone capabilities are likely to exponentially grow in the next 5 years driven by niche technologies and networked munitions and standoff capabilities. I do not think IAF is looking to match numbers in the short term but over the longer term that could happen.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread

Post by brar_w »

kit wrote: I do not think IAF is looking to match numbers in the short term but over the longer term that could happen.
Short medium and long term are all open to interpretation but for this thread, documenting PLAAF's modernization pace is important. If allowed t (mix b/w airpower and naval modernization being feasible) and being able to overcome some short-medium tech challenges (like engines), China will probably want to match the US capacity for combat aircraft production (that's their strategic competitor that they are trying to dislodge). This means that the aspirational goal would be 200-250 fighter a/c capacity a year. There would be export in this as well. Of course their pace of UAV/UCAV modernization isn't slow either. And they have the H-20 in development.

Going back to MRCA, the original IAF ask was 126 aircraft right? And that was in the early to mid 2000s? It would be interesting to see where the PLAAF was then, and where have they come in the 10 or so years that that program was in limbo.
Last edited by brar_w on 13 Sep 2021 05:04, edited 1 time in total.
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18190
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread

Post by Rakesh »

brar_w wrote:
Rakesh wrote:But the IAF counter to that is 114 MRFA plus 100+ Tejas Mk2 plus 36 Rafales plus 272 upgraded Su-30MKIs.?
The 114 MRFA (MMRCA, etc) is not happening. Tejas MK2 can't come soon enough and will be a game changer from a quality/quantity mix perspective. 36 Rafale's are great but likely 2-3 times that needed given they likely have a dual role (this quantity requirement isn't controversial as the IAF asked for as much decade+ ago). 272 MKI's? Are those already delivered or will they be buying 272 more in the coming decade?
Brar, I included the 114 MRFA in that list because it is an active acquisition. But I agree with you that the 114 MRFA is not going to happen.

So now we have 36 Rafales + 272 upgraded Su-30MKIs + 100 Tejas Mk2s. Of that, only the 36 Rafales are confirmed. The Super Sukhoi for the already delivered 272 Su-30MKIs has yet to take off. And the 100+ Tejas Mk2s are a long way off.

But I am keeping the deliverables aside. I am viewing the acquisition plans as is. None of these numbers are coming anywhere close to what the PLAAF is fielding i.e. 500 to 800 new combat aircraft in the next 10 years. So again I am asking, why the disconnect between what the IAF wants (acquisition plans) and what the PLAAF is getting? These IAF acquisitions are expected to serve on the frontline for at least the next four decades. How are these planes expected to survive against the J-20 and J-31? How are these meagre numbers expected to survive technologically against the PLAAF?

The situation with the Navy is far worse. I don't know how many navalized J-31s the PLAN is planning to acquire in addition to the already large fleet of J-15s that the PLAN flies. But the Indian Navy's response to this is a MRCBF contest of which the F-18 SH and Rafale M are the leaders - both are fourth generation fighters. Even worse, the Navy is also behind the TEDBF development, another fourth generation fighter. And from 57 aircraft, it has been reduced to 36 - but because of budgetary concerns. Why the disconnect? The Navy expects to have these aircraft serve for at least three decades.

What does the IAF and the Navy know that we do not know? Are these planners not aware or do they have horse blinders on?
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread

Post by brar_w »

Rakesh wrote: What does the IAF and the Navy know that we do not know? Are these planners not aware or do they have horse blinders on?
I'm not sure I'm getting the logic. Does it imply that because they aren't publicly increasing defense spending to keep pace in certain areas where China is building by a lot, then that must mean that they don't need to do it because they must know something that we don't? I don't think that is the case at all. We are not and should not be privy to what the IAF or the IN are assessing as far defense modernization needs in view of clarity on Chinese modernization, and political/military changes over time. Or what they share with GOI in terms of strategic planning, urgent or long term needs. They will clearly stay within the budgets allotted to them and will continue to ask for a capability that will provide the affordable deterrent needed in a multi front type of situation. But even that (the oft thrown around 42 squadron number) doesn't look like it will happen anytime soon without some serious investment made into indigenous capacity and defense spending increase. Which isn't happening at a pace that will allow something like 60-80 Tejas or Tejas derivatives (MK2, TEDBF etc) to be fielded each year. But because they aren't getting 42 squadrons, and because no one is doing anything to get them what they think they need it doesn't mean that they have blinders or they must know something else which is actually telling them they don't need the end strength they themselves think they need.

Bottom line is that the Chinese problem is both quantitative and qualitative. They still have a large 3rd generation fighter force. That force structure is being replaced by 4+ generation aircraft and in quantity (between J-10C, J-10/14/16, and a small number of Su-35 (for now) ). And then there is the more advanced threat, of J-20's, possibly PLAAF operated J-31's and the H-20. In 1995, a RAND study showed that they had 4,000 fighters of which less than 30 were 4th generation (Su-27's). Now they have close to 1200 4 and 5th gen aircraft and road to the next 1,000 will take less than half the time it took them to get to the first 1K (going by their annual rates). So qualitative improvements in addition to fielding force multiplier capabilities that did not exist, or barely existed then (refueling aircraft, AEW&C) and some completely new systems (UCAV's).
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18190
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread

Post by Rakesh »

brar_w wrote:No I don't think they are looking at this wrong. They are under resourced. This is going to require the IAF equipping itself at much higher rates with Tejas, AMCA, and anything else that comes through the pipeline. All I am doing is setting some baseline expectation on PLAAF modernization. What we are staring at is a modernization program that could potentially deliver a thousand or more advanced aircraft over the next dozen or so years. And they aren't putting brakes on things like AEW, UAV/UCAV's, bomber modernization etc. So the resources that will be required to strengthen the IAF will need a serious boost over the next 10-15 years.
I did not realise that you edited your post. I just saw this and thank you for answering my question.

In the absence of a surge in squadron strength, all we have to fall back on is the 42 squadron requirement set out by the IAF. That is what we put against a baseline expectation of PLAAF modernization. I have been listening to the 42 squadron requirement from the time of Air Chief Marshal Srinivasapuram Krishnaswamy Sir in 2001. That was the reason for 126 Mirage 2000s to replace the large number of MiG-21s that were planning to be retired. That unfortunately went the way of the dodo. But every Chief since has emphasized that 42 squadron requirement.

It was Air Chief Marshal Dhanoa Sir that crystalized the 42 squadron requirement quite well. As per him, the IAF can hold her own against the PLAAF and PAF in a two front war, but 42 squadrons are required for full spectrum of operations. There is no official plan - despite some Air Marshals arguing for 45, 50, 55 and even 60 air combat squadrons - of going beyond that 42 number.

So regardless of how much the PLAAF increases her numbers, the needle is not moving from 42. Otherwise the IAF will have to officially state that to the MoD. There is no indication that has occurred. It was Air Marshal Raghnunath Nambiar Sir that said the MRFA contest for 114 phoren aircraft was derived after careful planning. Whether that deal ever reaches fruition remains to be seen, but there is no official plan to acquire yet another phoren fighter beyond 114 aircraft. The rest of the numbers are to be met solely by local products. So the idea that they are under resourced - while true to the current acquisitions - does not pass muster beyond the 42 squadron requirement. The IAF believes that they can achieve their objectives with 42 squadrons and Air Chief Marshal Bhadauria Sir just announced that the IAF plans to acquire 350 aircraft from local sources. All that will feed into the 42 unit plan, but nothing more. In the future, that number could very well increase. But for now, 42 squadrons it is.
brar_w wrote:I'm not sure I'm getting the logic. Does it imply that because they aren't publicly increasing defense spending to keep pace in certain areas where China is building by a lot, then that must mean that they don't need to do it because they must know something that we don't?
I am asking that will a Rafale stand any chance against a fifth generation J-20 or J-31? What chances do 36 Rafales have against 200 J-20s and hundreds of J-31s that PLAAF will field by the mid 2030s? I am not even being sarcastic here. I am honestly asking. And AMCA will be nowhere on the horizon by the mid-2030s. And by then, the PLAAF will have ironed out all the issues of the J-20 and J-31. How is Rafale going to survive? Going by that logic, how will 114 fourth generation MRFA - of any type - stand any chance against hundreds of J-20s and J-31s that the PLAAF will field against the IAF? Will these aircraft not all be shot down by the superior fifth generation platform of Chinese origin? Why is the IAF acquiring fourth generation platforms to counter hundreds of fifth generation platforms? How does one engage an enemy that you cannot see? This is what I am honestly asking.
brar_w wrote:I don't think that is the case at all. We are not and should not be privy to what the IAF or the IN are assessing as far defense modernization needs in view of clarity on Chinese modernization, and political/military changes over time. Or what they share with GOI in terms of strategic planning, urgent or long term needs. They will clearly stay within the budgets allotted to them and will continue to ask for a capability that will provide the affordable deterrent needed in a multi front type of situation. But even that (the oft thrown around 42 squadron number) doesn't look like it will happen anytime soon without some serious investment made into indigenous capacity and defense spending increase. Which isn't happening at a pace that will allow something like 60-80 Tejas or Tejas derivatives (MK2, TEDBF etc) to be fielded each year. But because they aren't getting 42 squadrons, and because no one is doing anything to get them what they think they need it doesn't mean that they have blinders or they must know something else which is actually telling them they don't need the end strength they themselves think they need.
Thank You :)

I am not dismissing the Chinese strength, especially in production and numbers. I am envious of them in that aspect.

But the few cryptic (but public) statements some recent Air Chiefs that have commented on the J-20 program, leaves open to interpretation on what the PLAAF claims and what the actual reality is. And these Air Chiefs have access to data and info, that none of us have or should have. And these Air Chiefs - along with Air HQ - are planning decades into the future. And they are confident that their recent fourth generation fighter acquisitions - especially the phoren one - can withstand a PLAAF air assault...with the J-20 being the tip of the spear.

After seeing a number of pilots (senior IAF leadership no less!, including an Air Chief) grinning from ear to ear - after their Rafale sortie - I wonder if they are all living in some alternate universe of where they are unaware of the fact that aircraft like the J-20 and J-31 actually exist and not fanboy art. That would be worrisome and alarming. And these senior officers would love to get more Rafales. If they got a deal for 114 of them, they will grab it with both hands.
brar_w wrote:Bottom line is that the Chinese problem is both quantitative and qualitative. They still have a large 3rd generation fighter force. That force structure is being replaced by 4+ generation aircraft and in quantity (between J-10C, J-10/14/16, and a small number of Su-34 (for now) ). And then there is the more advanced threat, of J-20's, possibly PLAAF operated J-31's and the H-20. In 1995, a RAND study showed that they had 4,000 fighters of which less than 30 were 4th generation (Su-27's). Now they have close to 1200 4 and 5th gen aircraft and road to the next 1,000 will take less than half the time it took them to get to the first 1K (going by their annual rates).
No argument there.
ldev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2616
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread

Post by ldev »

As a quick fix the 114 MRFA should be broken up into:

36 Rafale - IAF
36 FA-18s for the IN
36 EA-18G, even if they are sold with the older ALQ-99 pods and not the Next Generation Jammer pod. (to be shared between the IAF & IN)

Whether the US will agree to sell the Growler in a package with the Hornets is the big question, maybe brar_w can opine. But what the Growler acquisition will do is provide the much needed EW protection that the 272 strong SU-30 fleet needs and make it that much more potent as a strike aircraft specially if domestic weapon development such as SAAW, Rudram, Brahmos NG, the Nirbhay follow on cruise missile, all of which will be integrated with the SU-30 can be accelerated. This is necessary, because the process of updating the SU-30 radars will take a long time and it's self protection suite right now consists of disparate components and this package will plug that vulnerability and give the IAF the breather needed for a methodical update to the SU=30.

This will also at least staunch the slide in terms of capability vs the PLAAF until the LCA Mk. 2 and more importantly the AMCA come on board hopefully in large numbers.
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18190
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread

Post by Rakesh »

Same question arises - what will these aircraft do against 200 J-20s and the hundreds of J-31s that the PLAAF will field by the mid 2030s?

All 36 Rafales + 36 FA-18s + 36 EA-18Gs will be shot down. They are all fourth generation. The J-20 and J-31 will be superior to them, because it is fifth generation....especially by the mid-2030s.

Not to mention, the PL-15 has a range of 300+ km. That will be the primary weapon of the J-20 and J-31. The AIM-120D has a range of only 160+ km. And the Meteor is 10 km less than the AIM-120D. The IAF is looking at a huge loss, with any fourth generation fighter.

And if their fourth generation fighters like the J-10, J-11 or J-15 are armed with the PL-15, the result will still be the same. And the PAF is also going to get the PL-15. No western missile comes close to this Chinese technological marvel. What the US did with successive AIM-120 variants - after decades of mastering missile technology - the Chinese have done in under a decade. Just imagine ldev - 300+ km in a form factor that slender. WOW!
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread

Post by brar_w »

Rakesh wrote:So regardless of how much the PLAAF increases her numbers, the needle is not moving from 42. Otherwise the IAF will have to officially state that to the MoD. There is no indication that has occurred. It was Air Marshal Raghnunath Nambiar Sir that said the MRFA contest for 114 phoren aircraft was derived after careful planning. Whether that deal ever reaches fruition remains to be seen, but there is no official plan to acquire yet another phoren fighter beyond 114 aircraft. The rest of the numbers are to be met solely by local products. So the idea that they are under resourced - while true to the current acquisitions - does not pass muster beyond the 42 squadron requirement. The IAF believes that they can achieve their objectives with 42 squadrons and Air Chief Marshal Bhadauria Sir just announced that the IAF plans to acquire 350 aircraft from local sources. All that will feed into the 42 unit plan, but nothing more. In the future, that number could very well increase. But for now, 42 squadrons it is.
I get that. It's 42 until its revised above 42 in which case it will be higher than 42. That's how these things work. In reality however these things and resourcing go hand in hand and if China's qualitative and quantitative capabilities grow at a pace not expected (like their naval expansion has done) then that number could well be revised beyond 42 (almost all of China's rivals/competitors are currently doing this very thing). Currently the IAF still has needs identified back in the mid-2000's that are still unmet so it will be a while before they publicly adjust that number though I'm sure at private levels the MOD and the GOI is well aware of airpower capacity implications of Chinese modernization and the fact that doing more with less has its limits.

But it is what it is. They will likely do a similar capacity (with quality imp and modernization) build up to their airpower like they have done on their naval side, and the 10-15 years delta b/w these two buildups would not give time to react and make the investments needed to keep pace. The IAF is not unique in this. The USAF is in a similar boat, and so is JASDF.
Rakesh wrote:Same question arises - what will these aircraft do against 200 J-20s and the hundreds of J-31s that the PLAAF will field by the mid 2030s?
Don't get this? Are you saying that adding additional aircraft won't give the IAF any advantage?

I'm not bringing up the F/A-18, Rafale or whatever else. Those programs aren't going anywhere. But additional 4+ (could be more MK1A's, could be more MKI's) generation aircraft could be of great use in terms of the capability balance given that China will continue to produce at least 50, 4+ generation aircraft a year for the foreseeable future (if not closer to 2x that).
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18190
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread

Post by Rakesh »

Brar, I am saying adding any additional aircraft - that are fourth generation in origin - will not stand any chance against a fifth generation platform such as the J-20 or J-31.

Simple example - if I put an IAF Rafale against an USAF F-22....who do you think will win? You know the answer to that rhetorical question. So using that same example, but I substitute J-20 or J-31 instead of F-22....will the J-20/J-31 also not win? So then, my question arises that is why is the IAF hell bent on acquiring a 4th generation platform - that is expected to serve for the next 40 years - to counter a 5th generation platform?

Where is the IAF's fifth generation platform? The IAF does not have one! Let us not even get into the numbers argument here, because on that count...the IAF is definitely at a serious disadvantage. You are 100% correct there.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread

Post by brar_w »

Rakesh wrote:Brar, I am saying adding any additional aircraft - that are fourth generation in origin - will not stand any chance against a fifth generation platform such as the J-20 or J-31.
It would have different had that been the only threat. J-20 is still a LRIP platform. If they're lucky they'll have 200 combat coded aircraft by 2032 (12-20 added each year). J-31 is not yet in production so that is even longer term than that and may first go to the Navy for their AC's. But much more capacity is being created by their other platforms. Things to watch out for over the next 10 years, would be the combined J-10C and J-16 production rate. If that begins approaching 60-80 aircraft a year (though it could be as high as 100 given some speculation) then that's a huge qualitative bump for their AF. And I believe they already have over 400 J-10's in service some of which I assume will be modernized over this decade with newer avionics.
ldev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2616
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread

Post by ldev »

Rakesh wrote:Same question arises - what will these aircraft do against 200 J-20s and the hundreds of J-31s that the PLAAF will field by the mid 2030s?

All 36 Rafales + 36 FA-18s + 36 EA-18Gs will be shot down. They are all fourth generation. The J-20 and J-31 will be superior to them, because it is fifth generation....especially by the mid-2030s.

Not to mention, the PL-15 has a range of 300+ km. That will be the primary weapon of the J-20 and J-31. The AIM-120D has a range of only 160+ km. And the Meteor is 10 km less than the AIM-120D. The IAF is looking at a huge loss, with any fourth generation fighter.

And if their fourth generation fighters like the J-10, J-11 or J-15 are armed with the PL-15, the result will still be the same. And the PAF is also going to get the PL-15. No western missile comes close to this Chinese technological marvel. What the US did with successive AIM-120 variants - after decades of mastering missile technology - the Chinese have done in under a decade. Just imagine ldev - 300+ km in a form factor that slender. WOW!
The stated objective of the PL-15 is to target high value assets such as tankers, AWACs which the USAF will deploy in any Pacific war. It's only with that kind of rcs will the J-20 or the J-11 radars be able to track at those ranges. The PL-15 will not be effective against fighter sized targets at anywhere near it's maximum range. For fighter sized targets such as the Rafale it's range will be equivalent to the Meteor or less. I am sure that there was a reason that Air Marshal Bhadauria made that comment last November when he said that with the Rafale the IAF has a first shot advantage vs the PLAAF. I am sure that he took into account the fact that the J-20 was deployed in Tibet at that time when he made that comment. However brar_w does have a point in that numbers have a quality all of their own and the Chinese production is prodigious. By the end of this decade they could have an all 4th and 5th generation fleet.

Where the IAF and the armed forces in general lack is forward planning. Today's acquisition planning has to take into account the PLAAF of 2030 to 2040 and that is unfortunately just not happening.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread

Post by brar_w »

Rakesh, Meteor is kinematically superior to the AIM-120D which focuses mainly on accuracy, ECCM and other missile communication improvements over the AIM-120C7. The idea with the D variant was to make it more accurate and add some next gen ECCM and communication features. The larger planned 5th gen field meant that they could wait for kinematic improvements (you're not targeting F-22 or F-35 at max PL12/15 ranges, and these platforms have the signature, LPI/LPD sensors and comms to get closer and get quicker shots) until the replacement arrived (which has been in development in secret since around 2015).
ldev wrote:he stated objective of the PL-15 is to target high value assets such as tankers, AWACs which the USAF will deploy in any Pacific war. It's only with that kind of rcs will the J-20 or the J-11 radars be able to track at those ranges. The PL-15 will not be effective against fighter sized targets at anywhere near it's maximum range.
That's a logical place to start when you have a low availability 5th gen asset (still being sorted out and in LRIP), and have a maritime A2AD strategy you are trying to create against an opponent who has to rely on long range force multipliers due to lack of survivable local basing. However, fast forward 10-12 years when PLAAF has 3-4 times as many J-20's then more capable versions of MRAAM's will also come in and they'll begin to mix their low observable and non low-observable aircraft together to increase their effectiveness in the OCA/DCA mission areas.
ldev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2616
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread

Post by ldev »

brar_w wrote: That's a logical place to start when you have a low availability 5th gen asset (still being sorted out and in LRIP), and have a maritime A2AD strategy you are trying to create against an opponent who has to rely on long range force multipliers due to lack of survivable local basing. However, fast forward 10-12 years when PLAAF has 3-4 times as many J-20's then more capable versions of MRAAM's will also come in and they'll begin to mix their low observable and non low-observable aircraft together to increase their effectiveness in the OCA/DCA mission areas.
The big question is really how stealthy is the J-20. I was reading up a post on the F-16 forum and the physics that go into broadband stealth is comprehensive and mind blowing and how the US progressed from Gen 1 stealth on the F-117 to Gen 2 on the F-22 and F-35. By that metric I really wonder how far along China is e.g. supposedly frontal rcs for the J-20 is low but the side view/profile and from the rear it is not quite as stealthy. However the flip side of that argument is that they will learn and progress and improve so that by the 2030-2040 time frame they will improve their understanding of stealth design.

By the way, talking of 5th gen fighters, the Royal Navy's QE2 Group which is on an extended deployment will be visiting 3 ports along India's western coast in October-November and exercising with both the Indian Navy and Indian Air Force. That will be the first time that the IAF and IN planes will be exposed to a 5th Gen aircraft as the QE2 has 2 squadrons of F-35B, one each from the Royal Navy and the US Marine Corp.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread

Post by brar_w »

ldev wrote:The big question is really how stealthy is the J-20.
It doesn't have to be VLO or F-22 level stealth and RCS reduction for it to be significantly more effective than the likes of J-10, J-16, or Su-35 in an offensive or strike role. You are still looking at dramatic RCS reduction over their 4+ generation platforms that carry pods, fuel tanks, and external weapons.
mind blowing and how the US progressed from Gen 1 stealth on the F-117 to Gen 2 on the F-22 and F-35.
It wasn't overnight and it was with massive investment. Gen 1 stealth was faceted with limited agility. Gen 2 allowed it to be non faceted wideband stealth as seen on the B-2 and competing designs at the time. F-22 and YF-23 wanted low-observability to be combined with better than 4th gen maneuverability and kinematics. F-35's focus on RCS reduction (beyond what was done on the ATF) was in terms of affordable manufacturing, sustainment, and materials that covered a larger part of the spectrum (broadband RAM has been pointed to by Lockheed that is said to provide coverage down to L band). Each generation benefited from design, production and operational experience of the prior so lot of learnings were built upon and not lost.

China doesn't need to be anywhere near these platforms for them to make good use of the J-20. Look at their current heavy strike fighter (Flanker clones) in terms of RCS. This is a dramatic improvement.
Last edited by brar_w on 13 Sep 2021 07:43, edited 2 times in total.
ldev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2616
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread

Post by ldev »

brar_w wrote:
ldev wrote:The big question is really how stealthy is the J-20.
It doesn't have to be VLO or F-22 level stealth and RCS reduction for it to be significantly more effective than the likes of J-10, J-16, or Su-35 in an offensive or strike role. You are still looking at dramatic RCS reduction over their 4+ generation platforms that carry pods, fuel tanks, and external weapons.
That is very true. An rcs reduction from 10 sq m for the J-11 to say a 0.1 sq m for the frontal aspect of a J-20 will reduce an SU-30s detection range from 300 km to significantly less than 100 km and even below that for target quality data.

That may be 2x-4x orders of magnitude worse than the F-22/35 duo but it is more than adequate for the mission at hand.

What the IAF needs is something like DAS and EOTS for it's 4th gen fighters to handle the PLAAF J-20s and follow ons :)
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread

Post by brar_w »

ldev wrote:J-11 to say a 0.1 sq m for the frontal aspect of a J-20 will reduce an SU-30s detection range from 300 km to significantly less than 100 km and even below that for target quality data.
Also do the same for legacy air to air and even surface to air SAM's. This isn't something that comes up much in the discussion but the performance degradation of missile seekers against LO or VLO aircraft is going to be significant. Not merely because they are looking at much smaller RCS, but also because the dramatic increase in effectiveness of countermeasures when being used by a signature optimized platform. Basically, a new generation of seeker concepts and guidance is needed to handle the proliferated fifth generation threat.
What the IAF needs is something like DAS and EOTS for it's 4th gen fighters to handle the PLAAF J-20s and follow ons :)
EOTS is a MW-IR system. Its IRST functions work for the F-35 because the platform can get significantly closer to 4th gen threats. For threats that need to close the gap b/w them and much lower signature platforms you'd need a LW-IR system because you need the extended range performance that comes with a long wave system.
ldev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2616
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread

Post by ldev »

brar_w wrote:
ldev wrote:J-11 to say a 0.1 sq m for the frontal aspect of a J-20 will reduce an SU-30s detection range from 300 km to significantly less than 100 km and even below that for target quality data.
Also do the same for legacy air to air and even surface to air SAM's. This isn't something that comes up much in the discussion but the performance degradation of missile seekers against LO or VLO aircraft is going to be significant. Not merely because they are looking at much smaller RCS, but also because the dramatic increase in effectiveness of countermeasures when being used by a signature optimized platform. Basically, a new generation of seeker concepts and guidance is needed to handle the proliferated fifth generation threat.
There is a fascinating thread on the F-35 vs S400 in that forum which goes in depth on this issue. In the Indian context with India acquiring the S400, there is going to be a serious degradation in the Gravestone acquisition radar's performance against the J-20 vs the legacy PLAAF fleet.
Post Reply