Supplement to Xanadu's post- PLAAF Part 2- how many 4th gen fighters in service?

By: Pierrotlefou - 16th September 2003 at 23:47 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

I would like to point out that this kind of thread has been proven to be 100% flamebait in CDF, CMF, and TMF. I am not trying to make a personal attack here, but I would like to suggest that some level of prudence is exercised before creating a thread of this type.

To be more specific regarding the level of prudence, many a discussion of this type performed in other aviation forums have ended with the simple agreement that the numbers game has no relevance in reality, since in the end it is tactics, training, and doctrine that would decide the day.

Additionally, having known the disposition of many in this forum with respect to the reliability of PRC military aviation production numbers, may one suggest that the original poster exercise some modicum of conservatism and be willing to accept, upon receiving rebuttal, that perhaps, just perhaps, the existence of some of those aircraft cited, may still remain in nebulous uncertainty.

That having been said, may I suggest that the flammability of comments like this one:

However, will the ROCAF be neutralized by PLAAF SAMs? Afterall, they have reported as one of their strategies, 'controlling the sky with the ground.'

.... requires one to exercise caution and, again, prudence, in posting it, as well as understanding that harsh response to it is almost inevitable due to the manner in which it is stated and the disposition of many forum members. So please exercise some restraint upon responding to rebuttals.

Just in case, allow me to preempt violence by pointing out the unlikelihood of RoCAF aircraft entering range of PLAAF SAMs prior to any air-to air engagements between PLAAF and RoCAF aircraft. There, no name calling or recrimination is necessary in the voicing of such a simple opinion.

Also, this question:

How many TWese planes might be destroyed by a sudden PLA missile strike?

.... might best be answered by reminding one that "missile strike" implies a rather belligerent first-strike policy on the side of the PRC that many in this forum certainly would hope does not exist in reality. I request then, that those who respond exercise restraint and behave in a self-respecting manner.

Thank you

By: SOC - 17th September 2003 at 00:23 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

The SA-10 has a max range of 90 km. The SA-20 has a range of 200 km with the 48N6E2 missile. Regardless, either system is remarkably resilient in the face of electronic attack.

By: crobato - 17th September 2003 at 02:27 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

google, some of those dates were for contracts signed, not delivered.

For example, August 1999, contract for 28 SU-27UBK signed. November 2002, all plances delivered.

There is generally six to seven SU formations in the PLAAF now, plus an undetermined number in the Flight Test Center. This means that the number is closer to 200 instead of the 150 other sources are saying.

Russian made SU-27SKs and UBKs = Total 78 (maybe 80) not counting attrition. These deliveries are all well documented.

Russian made SU-30MKK = Total 76 now. It appears with the changes of PLAAF orbat and the formation of a new SU-30 formation, deliveries of the second order is now complete, making up 76 planes at least (perhaps 80). Deliveries are well documented except for the last batch. Russian press no longer reporting deliveries unlike before, meaning a gag order has been implemented on Russian arms suppliers with contracts to China. Photograph of plane 62 recently also indicates the last part of the second order has been delivered. There appears to be three formations according to Rick Kramer, one reg each in the 2nd Div, 29th Div, and 18th Div, the last the newest.

Chinese made SU-27SK/J-11 = This is the part that is most hazy. Alone the Russian made planes amount to over 150. Now how many Chinese made planes are there? In the last Zhuhai airshow, Richard Fisher reported a comment that says "several dozen". In his estimate, around at least 48, as of November 2002. Note that this is already September 2003.

We know there is at least from PLAAF orbat there are at least two regiments of J-11s, one in the 1st Division, and one in the 7th Division. Each regiment is about 20-40 aircraft. The PLAAF MTV video shown in CCTV showed a plane with a serial 32 on its rudder, so I guess it's possible that 1st Division might have up to 30 to 40 J-11s alone.

It means it's very plausible that there are 60 to 80 J-11s now. Add that to the Russian made planes, we're looking at over 200.

But we have to assume some attrition.

My guess is that prior to the J-11s being assembled, attrition was replaced either by used reconditioned Russian aircraft, or the badly damaged planes were rebuilt. After the j-11s come online, some J-11s were used to replace attrition.

Some formations could have a mix of Russian and Chinese made planes. 1st and 7th regiments might possibly have some of the late delivered UBKs (from the third order), while the regiment in the 33rd that used to have all the UBKs, might have some J-11s now.

Then an undisclosed number of J-11s are present in the Flight Test Center for godknowswhat, presumably engine and avionics testing. Engine likely to be tested are WS-10A, and the avionics or radar could be domestic and Phazotron's.

So we're looking at a really big Flanker fleet here, one that grows even more every few months. The worst is that the gag order on the Russians, which means that if there are new deals it won't be publicly announced. We have to rely on for Kanwa or Jane's for scoops, look to orbat changes and pictures and articles from magazines.

You simply have to study the "body language" of the Russian arms manufacturers like Sukhoi and Raduga, as they will not publicly admit about items destined for the Chinese market, but the products being made has an obvious implication and are likely to funded by the Chinese. For example the M400 pod on the MKK2 and Kh-59 missile developments.

My guess is that the J-11 license will be upgraded to the new SU-27SM/SMK level, while some planes may be made with all Chinese radar and engines as a backup. Older planes may be upgraded to such. MKK licensing is still a possibility, unless China chooses the SMKs instead. I also think that the 200 plane license is only for planes with imported Russian components; the PRC will probably end up building more than that, the balance above this number may be using entirely domestic parts, engine and radar included. While they continue to build SU-27s, the SU-30MKK will continue to be procured and incrementally evolved.

The question in the next few years is how to integrate all these hardware,with J-10s, A-50 and Y-8 AWACS, new PLAN ships, etc,.

By: crobato - 17th September 2003 at 05:29 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

Originally posted by google
sure what is wrong with this aprticular statement;

"However, will the ROCAF be neutralized by PLAAF SAMs? Afterall, they have reported as one of their strategies, 'controlling the sky with the ground.'"

It was not meant to be a flamebait- the PLAAF does station a significant number of SA-10 based batteries near the Fujian coast, and if these have a range anywhere between 100-200km, that is enough to control the airspace around the TW strait, no? But I suppose that would be incumbent on their surviving TWese SEAD missions.

That's the main problem for the Taiwanese, since they don't have any aircraft for SEAD missions. Their F-16s cannot mount AGM-88s since HARMs had not been permitted for sale to Taiwan (Pres. Clinton did not approve and neither did Bush).

Their only possible capability for SEAD is the TC-2A, missile which has been in development for sometime now, and there are questions, due to its delays, that the project might have trouble. But then of course, it could just be the heavy veil of secrecy you see with Taiwan projects.

The TC-2A, developed from the TC-2 active BVRAAM, is intended to equip the Ching Kuo upgrade.

Currently as of now, without, without any proper SEAD capability, the ROCAF can be picked off from the ground with inpunity. It also makes it costly to preemptively attack SSMs in the mainland, since they will be ringed by SAMs.

Success on the TC-2A might force the US to sell AGM-88 HARM, since the US has a habit of denying things to Taiwan unless Taiwan is forced to use a domestic alternative.

Due to the proximity of Taiwan, PLAAF planes that could carry cruise missiles, like the Kh-59ME on the MKK, or even modified land attack variants of the C-803 launched from H-6s, could launch over the mainland and over the Straits. That means for interception, the ROCAF would have to venture over the Straits and to the mainland, which can expose them to SAMs. With the distance on the straits around 100-150km, something like an S-300 could cover all the Straits.

Likewise, the PLAAF on the other hand, does have SEAD capability with the MKKs using Kh-31Ps, and the MKK may not be the last aircraft. Usually, the US should be willing to provide to Taiwan if a matching item is armed on the mainland. For example, the US has approved the shipment of AMRAAMs to Taiwan with the understanding that China already possess R-77s, and China has made no secret of its SD-10 project either. Still, knowing that China already have Kh-31P, approving AGM-88 for Taiwan should have been the logical countermove, but again there is currently no news.

By: nohnaimer - 17th September 2003 at 06:58 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

Well I think the ShenYang J-11 production is speading up, last time i checked they are running at 24/7 operation now.

Anywyas its safe to assume any conflict between PRC and ROC will start off with a massive ballistic missile and cruise missile strike from the mainland, not sure how much of the ROCAF will survive.

I don't think the PLAAF fields a large enough quantity of KH-31s for extended use though.

That makes alot of sense, since only the Su-30MKKs, Jh-7As and possibly the J-8IIM/H(with their Zhuk-8II, not sure though) can lauch the Kh-31s.

Likewise, the PLAAF on the other hand, does have SEAD capability with the MKKs using Kh-31Ps, and the MKK may not be the last aircraft. Usually, the US should be willing to provide to Taiwan if a matching item is armed on the mainland. For example, the US has approved the shipment of AMRAAMs to Taiwan with the understanding that China already possess R-77s, and China has made no secret of its SD-10 project either. Still, knowing that China already have Kh-31P, approving AGM-88 for Taiwan should have been the logical countermove, but again there is currently no news.

You kinda have to take the short ranged SAMs into account too, example the Tor M1 is suppose to have substantial anti missile capability.

By: plawolf - 17th September 2003 at 19:00 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

google:

" think the in 361 accident suggests some sort of problem with joint force communications- heck not even joint forces, but within the navy itself."

well thats a bit of a strech aint it? the 361 was doing a slient approach when the accident happened (ie, no comms). under those circumstances, it would be alot to ask even of the USN to be able to realise what has happened and responed in a short time scale.

By: crobato - 18th September 2003 at 01:38 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

Originally posted by google
I don't think the PLAAF fields a large enough quantity of KH-31s for extended use though.

We got no solid evidence to say if the numbers are big or small. It goes either way.

But the picture of a bare metal Kh-31 on a test bench in a Chinese factory, which you can remember being in Hui Tong's site suggests a lot of things. Perhaps China is planning to build this missile under license. Jane's reported that the JH-7A will support Kh-31,which can indicate that the PRC already knows its launch codes and can be integrated with a local fire control system. Another is the picture of the SU-30 linked with SU-27s I posted before. It shows SU-27s firing Kh-31s on ground targets. Four planes appear targeted for Kh-31 integration, and we can deduce SU-30MKK, SU-27, JH-7, and quite possibly either J-10 or J-8II.

If this is so, then the PRC has big plans on using the Kh-31 (both A and P versions).

The Russians isn't going to license their products that easily, not even for just a fee. Their usual gambit is that they would require a large order of XXX quantity before they would give you a license. Of coruse they have to make serious money and keep their workers employed first. In which case if the PRC is seriously planning to license manufacture the Kh-31 (in both versions), they would be forced to buy a lot of the Russian made missile first.

By: crobato - 18th September 2003 at 01:51 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

it's not a general cruise missile yes, since it appears that the PRC are working on their own, such as the so called Red Bird series, or more feasibly, making a land attack version of their YJ-8X series.

The Kh-31P is intended to attack radar installations; the Kh-31A, against ships, and possibly another version against AWACS. Thus, you only need enough missiles for doing the job and training.

For more general purpose, it would be better for the PRC to manufacture their own land attack missiles or munitions, either their own design or licensing from Russia---the KAB-500L, KAB-500kr and KAB-1500kr comes into mind---as some of the stuff Kanwa may have mentioned.

But even using SSMs, cruise missiles, and bombs with TV and laser guidance would be too expensive---even for a country like the US---so ultimately China has to develop a more cost effective PGM like the JDAM using their own satellite navigation system, or use saturation tactics with dumb bombs. The fact that China already sent up a third Beidou satellite to complete a basic 3 satellite constellation may be indicating they're looking steps ahead.