The Su-57 entered design phase in 2004, ie, after all existing jets were already flying. So it's been designed to defeat all existing threats, including the Rafale, F-22 and F-35. The only thing in question is its slow development speed. But the airframe, materials and new engine are technologically on par or more advanced than existing jets.
Furthermore, the main production variant is a modernised jet. I'd argue the first version is a mere Rafale++. But the Su-57M definitely is not just a mere upgrade. While "significantly" surpassing all existing jets in crucial performance metrics like range, endurance, acceleration, service ceiling, supercruise, payload etc, its size and extra electrical power allows faster introduction of new technologies compared to existing jets. Even the base Su-57 model boasts capabilities that do not exist on existing jets, like DIRCM, side arrays, active smart antennas etc. And all this without even counting its stealth features, which does not come with geometry and RAM alone. Unlike the F-22, stealth has been baked into the Su-57 from the ground-up.
LCA Mk1A is not suitable. It lacks the range to operate in the Himalayas. With a basic range of 1700Km, its combat radius is just 150Km for an on-station time of 1 hour. It's merely a point defence aircraft, which is why its more important along the Pak border, where transit times are way shorter and the airspace is smaller. It's unlikely to have enough thrust for the job in the mountains. The LCA Mk2 is far more relevant along China because it can provide an hour long on-station time 400Km away. LCA Mk1A is merely a stopgap measure to make up for the loss of the Bison fleet. If the Bisons were still going strong, the IAF would have skipped out on Mk1As entirely.
More MKIs don't help because it's a one-trick pony. If it works, great, but if it doesn't work, then you are sitting on a vast fleet of uselessness. And to make it work, we don't need more than 100 jets. If those 100 jets fail, then it doesn't matter if we have 150 more or 250 more. The rest of the fleet is only there to provide mass, and that mass can come via other cheaper and more efficient jets. Basically, we are already bloated at the top end by about 50-80 jets, there's no need to add more to our paunch.
The J-20 is already in its second iteration, it will soon enter the third with its definitive engine. Considering it a less than 5th gen is very naive. Its avionics are all recent compared to the F-22 and F-35, whose electronics were designed in the 90s and early 2000s. The J-20 with its current engine is no different from the Su-57, which is why we can even put up a decent fight until the new version comes in post 2025.
PLAAF buys jets in batches of 250 jets, likely 'cause they have 5 commands and each command gets 40-50 jets. So the WTC should have 80-100 J-20s in 2 versions during peacetime. To counter that, we have 36 Rafales for now, and hopefully 40 Su-57Ms after 2025. Of course, they should be able to double that via asset transfers from the reserve command (CTC) and the STC during war. So that's 160-200 J-20s. Still, 36 Rafales and 40 Su-57s are enough to counter those numbers. Or even 2 more modernised Rafale squadrons should do the trick, considering the new J-20 and Su-57M will still be immature until 2027-28. If 36+40 jets fail, then there's no point in having more anyway.
Alternatively, even if I find it unlikely, it's possible that the IAF believes 36 Rafales can chew through any number of J-20s thrown at them. Or at least, irrespective of how the air war goes, the 36 Rafales provide the IAF with the minimum capabilities they need to achieve their objectives on the ground even if they have to work in phases across multiple sectors. For example, a single Rafale can do the job of 4-6 Jaguars in a single mission. The current Rafale fleet has enough striking power to do the job of multiple old squadrons of strike jets in a single sortie.
No, we won't see 3000 PLAAF jets attacking Taiwan, it's not necessary. Weapons have become as important as the jets. A single jet can hit more targets than ever before from longer ranges. To fight Taiwan and the USAF, the Chinese only need 100-150 advanced J-20s, with another 50 in reserve for air policing, OCA and DCA. If 100 jets get shot down pointlessly, then they will just cease the offensive. If your most advanced jet cannot fight, then the rest of the fleet is irrelevant, regardless of the numbers available.
The Air Force is struggling to create a next generation fleet.
www.businessinsider.com
“If I do not keep that F-22 fleet viable, the F-35 fleet frankly will be irrelevant. The F-35 is not built as an air superiority platform. It needs the F-22,” Hostage told the Air Force Times.
In the Vietnam War, the US + allies lost 12500 aircraft versus the North Vietnamese losing just 150 ASFs.
Even if they do end up with thousands of 5th gen jets, we do not need that many. We need 100 sufficiently advanced ASFs complemented by a few squadrons of MKI MLU and LCA Mk2, because that's the size of the airspace.
Apache can perform SEAD/DEAD effectively. Its high endurance and weapons also gives it the ability to protect bases from drones more effectively than fighter jets can.
