J20 Shock to PLAAF

[52051]

You have to take into account operational/maintenance costs as well. Flying and maintaining a fifth generation fighter for an hour isn't going to cost the same as flying a 4.5th generation fighter. I doubt that the J-16 is 70~80% of the J-20 since the worksmanship requirement for a 5th generation fighter far exceeds that of a 4th or even 4.5th generation fighter. According to Yang Wei, a stealth aerodynamics configuration literally needs to factor in the nuts and bolts of the plane. That, combined with the use of more composite material/titanium/RCS reduction coating, certainly implies a far more expensive airframe.

We don't get any evidence that the maintenance of J-20 is significantly higher, all the rumors are based on 1990era US stealth fighters, J-20's coating should be much more advanced than that.

As for the flyaway price, you forget to take the following into consideration:

J-20 is the first fighter go through open-bidding process to determine its subsystem suppliers and thanks to that, a lot of low efficient AVIC sub-companies are screened out, that's one main reason AVIC want to push a J-31.

Meanwhile J-16 still refuse open-bidding process and use a lot of closed-door deal to decide its subsystem suppliers.

Another factor need to considered is, given the possible four production lines of J-20 in CAC, PLA may placed a much larger order of J-20 (the future and backbone) than J-16 (a gap-filler).

That's why the rumor, where the flyaway cost of J-20 is not be much higher than J-16, hold water.

 

[52051]

Essentially the J-20 just showed what a war with the USA would look like.. a slaughterhouse for PLAAF forces.

The best solution is to use similar integration techniques and bring up J-20 and the second jet Chengdu has in the works quickly.

Not really, RAND's 2013 report show what a real war between China and US in east China sea could really look like, and they believe the US must retreat to the second island chain otherwise the US will lose, and at that time, they don't take J-20 and DF-26 into their considerations.

In RAND's 2016 report on a possible China vs US war, they basically admit the US will lose the war with current military hardware setting, regardless weather it retreat to second island chain or not, and they recommending the USAF enlarge its force size to meet the challenge, and again that's without the consideration of J-20s.

The problem with US is that their stealth fighters have very limited range and therefore needs a lot of supporting networks like tankers.

In a war with China, the Chinese will disable the US carriers with AShBM so the F-22/35 have to rely on oil tankers for refueling, and once the F-22/35 run out of fuel and have to go back to base, there may not be any base left to return to due to China's missile attacks.

In RAND's 2013 report they basically think the F-22/35 can hold the first wave of PLAAF attack, take full advantage of their stealth charaters, but once F-22/35 run out of fuel/missiles, the game is over, the PLA will go through the F-22 wall and take out all their supporting aircrafts and the US will basically lose the war after that.

Now you adding J-20 and DF-26 AShBM into the equation, the US will lost the F-22 wall even without F-22 run out of missiles since J-20 can go through the F-22 wall and take down their supporting system directly and return to take F-22 directly, without refueling, taking full advantage of its huge range.

 

[gambit]

Not really, RAND's 2013 report...

In RAND's 2016 report on a possible China vs US war, they basically admit the US will lose the war with current military hardware setting,...

You guys are taking these analyses the wrong way. Seriously wrong. And the reason is because none of you ever served and do not understand the purpose of these analyses. I do not say that to insult but as a statement of fact.

Here goes...

While Desert Shield was building and before I got orders to deploy, practically everyone in the squadron was reading up on various analyses on the potential shooting fight between the US and Iraq. RAND was included. Not one analysis was 'rosy' for the US and allies. China's PLA produced their own and predicted for the US, there would be Vietnam War era casualties even though the US would win -- and win decisively.

No one would be safe from Iraq's military. Iraqi air defense was assessed to be better than what the US encountered over North Viet Nam. Better in every aspects, from lethality to quality of manpower to quantity deployed. Everyone in the squadron was worried, including the enlisted because of today's modern warfare there is no 'rear echelon' anymore. Support would be targeted with possible biological/chemical weapons, the BC of NBC. Pilots returning from a sortie may not find anyone alive to safely land and marshal them home. RAND and the PLA agreed with each other.

Today, people mocked US for defeating a 'third rated' military, but had they been alive back then, they would have been among those embarrassed by their countries' analyses. In Desert Storm, the US and allies were in more danger of fratricide than from Iraqi resistance.

Which leads up to why Desert Storm embarrassed so many...

There are differences between an 'exercise', a 'war game', and a real 'war'. I will use a boxer for analogy.

A boxer do 'exercise' by lifting weight and timed sessions with the punching bag and the speed bag.

A 'war game' is when the boxer spars with a partner whose responses are usually unpredictable.

A real 'war' is when the boxer enters a real match where the outcome is recorded.

Think tank analyses like those from RAND are taken very very seriously. You guys simply do not know how seriously. Usually, they give the most optimistic estimates to the enemy and the worst case scenario to the US, and allies if necessary.

In an 'exercise', the unit's primary mission is stressed like the boxer lifting weights. For example, if the unit is a transportation company, it will have its equipment and troops under increased tempo, like a dash after a sustained jog. Instead of transporting 100 tons in one day, it will be doubled or even tripled in the same time frame.

In a 'war game', this transportation unit will be pitted against an 'enemy' and referees will commit virtual 'kills' against the unit, such as how many trucks and drivers are virtually disabled, but the unit is still committed to X tonnage per day.

What these think tank analyses does is to virtually pit the US military, under CURRENT war doctrines, hardware, and manpower, against an enemy that is estimated to be at his best, whatever level of development he might be. This is not to get more funding from Congress to the 'military-industrial-complex'. This is common sense when lives are at stake.

From these think tank analyses, we quietly modify our doctrines, hardware, and manpower as needed. Then the exercise to war game to more analyses starts all over.

After Desert Storm, I can guarantee you guys that NO ONE in the PLA leadership reads what RAND produces and say: "Aha...!!! If RAND says we win, we will beat the Americans." But that is what you guys are saying here. You are putting what RAND says as absolute. Fate, not destiny. And that failure to understand the purpose of why we pay RAND to do these analyses -- is why the rest of the world, including the PLA leadership, was embarrassed by Desert Storm. We have been self critical and up until now, your PLA was not.

 

[Only a courier]

Desert Storm is almost 30 years ago.
And you are right, PLA leadership was embarrassed by Desert Storm. It was a HUGE wake up call to the PLA.
After Desert Storm, it is PLA that quietly changed its doctrines, hardware and manpower.

RAND report is not 'absolute truth'. There could be many discussion about that. Personally I would very much agree to one thing pointed out by many, which is F22 was NOT designed for APAC war theater. F22's combat range is so short that it has to rely on refueling planes & a handful number of ground bases to maintain existence, say over Taiwan or South China Sea.

J20 is indeed not designed for winning a dog-fighting with F22 although it has canards. It is designed to kill the key nods like AWACs and refueling planes. It is also designed to catch up with the cutting-edge information technology which equips F35 and help PLAAF adapt to the information era.

I don't think it's hard to believe that US spent the past 15 years mostly fighting terrorists, while China is catching up now --- It has its own version of Red-Flag now. There should be no doubt, given the depth and width of the change of PLA, that PLA's target can only be to capable of winning so US would be deterred out of potential conflict areas.

US may still win if there was an all-out war, indeed.
But an all-out war is nobody's wish. There is an old saying in Chinese, '上兵伐谋 其次伐交 再次伐兵', meaning 'actual war is the last resort'

After Desert Storm, I can guarantee you guys that NO ONE in the PLA leadership reads what RAND produces and say: "Aha...!!! If RAND says we win, we will beat the Americans." But that is what you guys are saying here. You are putting what RAND says as absolute. Fate, not destiny. And that failure to understand the purpose of why we pay RAND to do these analyses -- is why the rest of the world, including the PLA leadership, was embarrassed by Desert Storm. We have been self critical and up until now, your PLA was not.

 

[gambit]

Desert Storm is almost 30 years ago.

But until the PLA has anything like Desert Storm in its portfolio since then, it is relevant to the PLA.

The reality is that Desert Storm is relevant in every major military academy because the US challenged so much of conventional wisdom of warfare. Back in WW II, coordination between large units were measured in minutes but in DS it was seconds. Your China done that in a real shooting fight?

And you are right, PLA leadership was embarrassed by Desert Storm. It was a HUGE wake up call to the PLA.
After Desert Storm, it is PLA that quietly changed its doctrines, hardware and manpower.

The PLA reformed in the line of the US military. Look at the PLA and see for yourself. Everything changed, from uniform to ship designs to aircraft. No, it was not a quiet change. It was like going from a high school band to a world class philharmonic orchestra.

RAND report is not 'absolute truth'.

But you guys are treating them like it is. This thread is not the first time you Chinese cited RAND as 'evident' of China's supposedly 'superiority' in some military affairs. You guys do this over and over. If a Western analyst wrote something you guys do not like, then the guy is ignorant, never lived in China, and is a racist. But if he wrote something favorable to China, then you guys cite it like words from a god.

There could be many discussion about that. Personally I would very much agree to one thing pointed out by many, which is F22 was NOT designed for APAC war theater. F22's combat range is so short that it has to rely on refueling planes & a handful number of ground bases to maintain existence, say over Taiwan or South China Sea.

Effective combat range is not a design flaw, which you Chinese love to call it so when compare the J-20 against the F-22 and F-35.

Please read this on what combat range really mean...

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/japan-deploys-first-downgraded-f-35.542357/page-7#post-10227337

You got suckered by Marty, who does not know what he is talking about.

I don't think it's hard to believe that US spent the past 15 years mostly fighting terrorists,...

This is where you are wrong if you think the US military somehow has 'lost' its way regarding conventional warfare.

Terrorism is low intensity long duration warfare. I doubt that your China will resort to this in the SCS. US ground forces bears the brunt of this type of warfare. In the meantime, US airpower remains focused on defeating any opponent that can field an air force. In this, your China is a child while the US is an experienced adult fighter. Am not saying that to be mean and insulting. Your PLA is not a guerrilla force and as much as it is a conventional force, it will be forced to fight conventional tactics and this is where we have the advantages.

 

[Only a courier]

RAND report is not everything, seriously.

I still have a thread stored in which Chinese discuss about NORPAC 82, how US successfully evade Soviet detection and got very close to Soviet shores, how satelites work and don't work when looking for CVBG, what CVBG did, like EMCON, like positioning E-2 to misguide Soviet, etc..etc...
And this thread is back in 2007.

I saw many threads talking about how much did the US air force change from Desert Storm to 1999 Kosovo to 2003 Iraqi.
But from a Chinese standpoint, PLAAF changed from J-7, J-8 to J20. The technological gap is shrinking, not widening.

As of now, many Chinese new weapon systems already showed very different but serious thinking from China military leadership about future war theater scenarios ---- their design features doesn't lie. They are nothing like any existing US/western weapons, like J20, like ASBM, like YJ18, like the recent Electromagnetic Gun (low cost fire power for west bank of Taiwan), like the Hypersonic Glider, etc..etc...

Chinese do NOT worship western opinions. Chinese do NOT simply mimic US hardware or doctrine.
Chinese have their own thinking.

But, hey, I still like RAND report when it says China will win.

 

[UKBengali]

You guys are taking these analyses the wrong way. Seriously wrong. And the reason is because none of you ever served and do not understand the purpose of these analyses. I do not say that to insult but as a statement of fact.

Here goes...

While Desert Shield was building and before I got orders to deploy, practically everyone in the squadron was reading up on various analyses on the potential shooting fight between the US and Iraq. RAND was included. Not one analysis was 'rosy' for the US and allies. China's PLA produced their own and predicted for the US, there would be Vietnam War era casualties even though the US would win -- and win decisively.

No one would be safe from Iraq's military. Iraqi air defense was assessed to be better than what the US encountered over North Viet Nam. Better in every aspects, from lethality to quality of manpower to quantity deployed. Everyone in the squadron was worried, including the enlisted because of today's modern warfare there is no 'rear echelon' anymore. Support would be targeted with possible biological/chemical weapons, the BC of NBC. Pilots returning from a sortie may not find anyone alive to safely land and marshal them home. RAND and the PLA agreed with each other.

Today, people mocked US for defeating a 'third rated' military, but had they been alive back then, they would have been among those embarrassed by their countries' analyses. In Desert Storm, the US and allies were in more danger of fratricide than from Iraqi resistance.

Which leads up to why Desert Storm embarrassed so many...

There are differences between an 'exercise', a 'war game', and a real 'war'. I will use a boxer for analogy.

A boxer do 'exercise' by lifting weight and timed sessions with the punching bag and the speed bag.

A 'war game' is when the boxer spars with a partner whose responses are usually unpredictable.

A real 'war' is when the boxer enters a real match where the outcome is recorded.

Think tank analyses like those from RAND are taken very very seriously. You guys simply do not know how seriously. Usually, they give the most optimistic estimates to the enemy and the worst case scenario to the US, and allies if necessary.

In an 'exercise', the unit's primary mission is stressed like the boxer lifting weights. For example, if the unit is a transportation company, it will have its equipment and troops under increased tempo, like a dash after a sustained jog. Instead of transporting 100 tons in one day, it will be doubled or even tripled in the same time frame.

In a 'war game', this transportation unit will be pitted against an 'enemy' and referees will commit virtual 'kills' against the unit, such as how many trucks and drivers are virtually disabled, but the unit is still committed to X tonnage per day.

What these think tank analyses does is to virtually pit the US military, under CURRENT war doctrines, hardware, and manpower, against an enemy that is estimated to be at his best, whatever level of development he might be. This is not to get more funding from Congress to the 'military-industrial-complex'. This is common sense when lives are at stake.

From these think tank analyses, we quietly modify our doctrines, hardware, and manpower as needed. Then the exercise to war game to more analyses starts all over.

After Desert Storm, I can guarantee you guys that NO ONE in the PLA leadership reads what RAND produces and say: "Aha...!!! If RAND says we win, we will beat the Americans." But that is what you guys are saying here. You are putting what RAND says as absolute. Fate, not destiny. And that failure to understand the purpose of why we pay RAND to do these analyses -- is why the rest of the world, including the PLA leadership, was embarrassed by Desert Storm. We have been self critical and up until now, your PLA was not.

Dude, only an idiot would think that Iraq could inflict anything more than minor casualties on US in 1991.
US had more than 1000 latest 4th gen fighters whereas Iraq had a couple of dozen export model Mig-29s.
US had 2000 latest Abrams and Iraq had 500 export model 1970s T-72s.
Iraq also was equipped with 1960s SA-6 and 1970s SA-8.

 

[MiG-35-BD]

China has won the AP war without firing a shot. The US has shot itself in the foot fighting Muslims. Its economy and military are in shambles. Its airframes are stressed to the limit due to excessive bombing around the world.

China on the other hand, is stronger than ever, both economically and militarily. Its weapons are designed for the AP theatre, and aligned to a thoroughly thought out strategy.

The US on the other hand, has no real strategy left. Its firefighting the world over. And increasingly embarrassing itself. It has fewer friends than ever before.

The J-20 has excellent range, ideal for AP. The F-22, doesn't. And the less said about the JSF "F"-35 the better.

I believe next we will see an increasingly assertive China with 3 operational aircraft carriers, and a new mega aircraft carrier, once known as "Taiwan".

 

[Kiss_of_the_Dragon]

RAND report is not everything, seriously.

I still have a thread stored in which Chinese discuss about NORPAC 82, how US successfully evade Soviet detection and got very close to Soviet shores, how satelites work and don't work when looking for CVBG, what CVBG did, like EMCON, like positioning E-2 to misguide Soviet, etc..etc...
And this thread is back in 2007.

I saw many threads talking about how much did the US air force change from Desert Storm to 1999 Kosovo to 2003 Iraqi.
But from a Chinese standpoint, PLAAF changed from J-7, J-8 to J20. The technological gap is shrinking, not widening.

As of now, many Chinese new weapon systems already showed very different but serious thinking from China military leadership about future war theater scenarios ---- their design features doesn't lie. They are nothing like any existing US/western weapons, like J20, like ASBM, like YJ18, like the recent Electromagnetic Gun (low cost fire power for west bank of Taiwan), like the Hypersonic Glider, etc..etc...

Chinese do NOT worship western opinions. Chinese do NOT simply mimic US hardware or doctrine.
Chinese have their own thinking.

But, hey, I still like RAND report when it says China will win.

China- US can simply compare to Y-20 and C-17, when you design an Y-20, you can't simply take C-17 wing and weld into Y-20 body but to design a proper wing for Y-20. Same go with Nation, China-US are two different governing system rule by different people, we can't simply copy their doctrine or hardware, US doctrine and hardware are designed for their need...but we can always take inspiration from them and improve ours.

Ex: Blackhawk helicopter, we toke inspiration from it but we made improvement to answer to our need but add an extra rotor blade, improve visibility...

 

[gambit]

Dude, only an idiot would think that Iraq could inflict anything more than minor casualties on US in 1991.

If you want to call all the major powers, including China, as 'idiots', that is fine with me. After all, all of them thought Iraq could inflict major casualties on the US and allies. The PLA said something like Vietnam War level of casualties.

 

[52051]

You guys are taking these analyses the wrong way. Seriously wrong. And the reason is because none of you ever served and do not understand the purpose of these analyses. I do not say that to insult but as a statement of fact.

Here goes...

While Desert Shield was building and before I got orders to deploy, practically everyone in the squadron was reading up on various analyses on the potential shooting fight between the US and Iraq. RAND was included. Not one analysis was 'rosy' for the US and allies. China's PLA produced their own and predicted for the US, there would be Vietnam War era casualties even though the US would win -- and win decisively.

No one would be safe from Iraq's military. Iraqi air defense was assessed to be better than what the US encountered over North Viet Nam. Better in every aspects, from lethality to quality of manpower to quantity deployed. Everyone in the squadron was worried, including the enlisted because of today's modern warfare there is no 'rear echelon' anymore. Support would be targeted with possible biological/chemical weapons, the BC of NBC. Pilots returning from a sortie may not find anyone alive to safely land and marshal them home. RAND and the PLA agreed with each other.

Today, people mocked US for defeating a 'third rated' military, but had they been alive back then, they would have been among those embarrassed by their countries' analyses. In Desert Storm, the US and allies were in more danger of fratricide than from Iraqi resistance.

Which leads up to why Desert Storm embarrassed so many...

There are differences between an 'exercise', a 'war game', and a real 'war'. I will use a boxer for analogy.

A boxer do 'exercise' by lifting weight and timed sessions with the punching bag and the speed bag.

A 'war game' is when the boxer spars with a partner whose responses are usually unpredictable.

A real 'war' is when the boxer enters a real match where the outcome is recorded.

Think tank analyses like those from RAND are taken very very seriously. You guys simply do not know how seriously. Usually, they give the most optimistic estimates to the enemy and the worst case scenario to the US, and allies if necessary.

In an 'exercise', the unit's primary mission is stressed like the boxer lifting weights. For example, if the unit is a transportation company, it will have its equipment and troops under increased tempo, like a dash after a sustained jog. Instead of transporting 100 tons in one day, it will be doubled or even tripled in the same time frame.

In a 'war game', this transportation unit will be pitted against an 'enemy' and referees will commit virtual 'kills' against the unit, such as how many trucks and drivers are virtually disabled, but the unit is still committed to X tonnage per day.

What these think tank analyses does is to virtually pit the US military, under CURRENT war doctrines, hardware, and manpower, against an enemy that is estimated to be at his best, whatever level of development he might be. This is not to get more funding from Congress to the 'military-industrial-complex'. This is common sense when lives are at stake.

From these think tank analyses, we quietly modify our doctrines, hardware, and manpower as needed. Then the exercise to war game to more analyses starts all over.

After Desert Storm, I can guarantee you guys that NO ONE in the PLA leadership reads what RAND produces and say: "Aha...!!! If RAND says we win, we will beat the Americans." But that is what you guys are saying here. You are putting what RAND says as absolute. Fate, not destiny. And that failure to understand the purpose of why we pay RAND to do these analyses -- is why the rest of the world, including the PLA leadership, was embarrassed by Desert Storm. We have been self critical and up until now, your PLA was not.

If this were the case which means all the US analysis are based on the worst case scenario, then you tell me how the americans could possibly lose their little war in NK or NV whenever China was involved? I remembered the US president during vietnam war, think the commiunist force are worthless and easy to deal with and McArthour whatever believed the analysis where China's force would not dare to enter North Korea? So were these the worst case scenarios for the US, according to ANY of the US "intel"? have you now realized how crap your logic is, I heard at that time RAND is the very few US intel believed China will save NK which make it famous in the US then?

I know logic is not your strong point, you should just stick to write wall of meaningless words and brag things that nobody cares, trying to act smart will only make you look like a smartass you are.

Beating Iraq means nothing really, Iraq army is not known for their fighting skills, the israel beaten them easily as well, and just about the same time when the Americans keep get beating by communists in Asia, so hardly proved anything.

 

[gambit]

I know logic is not your strong point,...

If so, then yours are even worse. Explain the PLA's analysis of Desert Storm that the US and allies WOULD suffer Vietnam War level casualties. The PLA analysis said 'would', not 'could'.

The point of my post 35 is that people in this forum do not know how to use the analyses of exercises and war games. The political component of a speculative war serves only as a prelude or intro as to the motivators of said speculative war. Once the exercise or war game is engaged, the focus is on the military component of it. The larger political forces that acts upon the real wars produced debatable 'victories' like China 'won' the military side of the Korean War or the North Vietnamese 'won' the Vietnam War. That is what you missed. That is not the focus of these exercises and war games at the unit level.

So not only is logic not your strong point, it seems neither is critical thinking.

 

[52051]

If so, then yours are even worse. Explain the PLA's analysis of Desert Storm that the US and allies WOULD suffer Vietnam War level casualties. The PLA analysis said 'would', not 'could'.

The point of my post 35 is that people in this forum do not know how to use the analyses of exercises and war games. The political component of a speculative war serves only as a prelude or intro as to the motivators of said speculative war. Once the exercise or war game is engaged, the focus is on the military component of it. The larger political forces that acts upon the real wars produced debatable 'victories' like China 'won' the military side of the Korean War or the North Vietnamese 'won' the Vietnam War. That is what you missed. That is not the focus of these exercises and war games at the unit level.

So not only is logic not your strong point, it seems neither is critical thinking.

Nobody here claimed PLA intel at that time will be always correct, my poor old boy, as any Intel it may make mistakes, like when things go south, the worst case scenario will become the best case scenario.

Just like the US intels according to you always make worst case scenario anaylsis, and only to find in a real war, their worst case may actually more like the best case scenario

 

[gambit]

Nobody here claimed PLA intel at that time will be always correct, my poor old boy, as any Intel it may make mistakes, like when things go south, the worst case scenario will become the best case scenario.

Just like the US intels according to you always make worst case scenario anaylsis, and only to find in a real war, their worst case may actually more like the best case scenario

And yet you guys latched on to Marty's posts like dog gnawing on a bone every time he produces his own 'analysis' of what a China-US war would look like -- China wins.

Example...

It is definitive -- to Marty -- that the J-20 can take out the American refueling tankers. No doubt about it. As if the Americans, who operates the world's largest air refueling fleet in the world, have NEVER consider the vulnerability of these assets in any of our exercises or war games. Marty is doing EXACTLY what the PLA did for Desert Storm. And you guys felled for it.

 

[52051]

And yet you guys latched on to Marty's posts like dog gnawing on a bone every time he produces his own 'analysis' of what a China-US war would look like -- China wins.

Example...

It is definitive -- to Marty -- that the J-20 can take out the American refueling tankers. No doubt about it. As if the Americans, who operates the world's largest air refueling fleet in the world, have NEVER consider the vulnerability of these assets in any of our exercises or war games. Marty is doing EXACTLY what the PLA did for Desert Storm. And you guys felled for it.

Guess what, because thats more realistic

I tell you what an scenario that could remote close to worst case will look like:

(1) China sink all major US navy assert in first 15 mins of the shooting war, (2)and take out most of the US fighters in airport with cruise missiles and ballastic missiles. (3) China take full advantage of F-22's range issue, and therefore there is no "F-22 wall" in RAND case.

And I am not even sure (1) is worst case or normal case scenario.

As for the Iraq war, I remebered a PLA general critized Iraq army's strategy, they think it is unbelievable that Saddam had not launch a major invasion to Sandi Arabia before the US army become ready months later.

Not to say Iraq army will win the war eventually, but by doing that, it is very possible the Iraq can force a draw with the US under much favored conditions.