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.