By Patrick Nicchiarelli - Asia & China desk
This question related to Top Gun: Maverick (Kosinski, 2022), can be put in parallel with the events of May 2025, when a Pakistan Air Force J‑10CE, shot down an Indian Rafale with a long‑range PL‑15 air‑to‑air long range missile. The episode came as a surprise to many analysts as the Rafale is considered an excellent 4.5 generation aircraft, and highlighted how little was still understood about the real operational performance of contemporary Chinese military aviation.
Beyond the “Best Aircraft” Debate
While opinions may differ on which aircraft truly deserves the title of “best,” the debate inevitably points to a broader and more consequential question. How many fighters China actually field, at what pace their rolling off production lines, and what they compare to the their Western counterparts?
Ultimately, these considerations lead to the question that matters most: what would a direct confrontation between the US and China look like, should tensions over Taiwan ever escalate into open conflict?
It is worth noting that this final question cannot be answered with certainty, given the number of critical variables that must be taken into account: the distance U.S. forces need to traverse to reach the battlefield; the availability and use of military bases in neighbouring regions; the volume of missiles and other munitions that could be sustained through resupply; the strength of China’s anti-access/area denial (A2/AD) strategy, which is widely regarded as highly effective (Pacific Forum, 2025); and the experience of the military personnel and material engaged (the use of J-10Cs by Pakistan mark the first time a recent Chinese aircraft is used in combat).
A Shrinking Fleet, but a More Capable One
Let us begin with the numbers. A study by the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) highlights that the number of aircraft in active service has declined over time. While this trend has been observed across several armed forces, due to a secure environments or economic constraints, Table 1 shows that older assets have been phased out, while third-generations aircraft, such as the J-7, are in the process of disappearing. This leaves the People’s Liberation Army Air Force (PLAAF) equipped predominantly with late-generation and advanced aircraft, such as the J-20 being the latest. If we take into account all the Chinese military branch, the number is in between of 2000 and 2300 (Edson and Saunders, 2025). (A comparative table on the generation of PLAAF aircraft in active service is available in Volume 125, Issue 1 (2025) of The Military Balance).
If you are not familiar with military aviation, this may sound like foreign language. Before digging further, let’s clarify what aircraft generations mean with the following table. Basically, generations are categorised according to the technological development of fighter aircraft. It is important to note that there are different understandings of fighter generations, which may vary depending on the author or institution. There are at least six other classifications, including one used by the People’s Liberation Army (PLA).
Table 2 shows the types of Jet fighter generations.
| Period | Core Capability | Representative Aircraft | Hallion (1990) | Aerospaceweb (2004) | PLA (2007) | Air Force Magazine (2009) | APDC (2012) | Baker (2018) |
| 1942–1950 | High subsonic, conventional armament | Me 262, DH Vampire, P-80 | 1 | 1 | — | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 1953–1955 | Transonic, radar, early AAMs | F-86, MiG-15, Hawker Hunter | 2 | 1 | 2 | |||
| 1953–1960 | Early supersonic, radar, AAMs | F-100, MiG-19 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | |
| 1955–1970 | Supersonic, Mach 2, AAM-focused | F-104, MiG-21, Mirage III | 4 | 3 | ||||
| 1960–1970 | Multirole fighter-bombers | F-4, MiG-23/27, Mirage F1 | 5 | 3 | 3 | 3 | ||
| 1970–1980 | Supersonic multirole | Tornado, Saab 37 Viggen | 4 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 4 | |
| 1974–1990 | High manoeuvrability, efficiency | F-14, F-15, F-16, F/A-18, MiG-29, Su-27, Mirage 2000 | 6 | |||||
| 1990–2000 | Advanced avionics, limited stealth | F-15E, Su-30, Su-35, J-10, JF-17 | — | 4.5 | 3.5 | 4+ | 4.5 | |
| 2000–present | Integrated avionics, stealth (4.5) | Rafale, Typhoon, Gripen, F/A-18E/F, J-16, KF-21 | 4++ | |||||
| 2005–present | Full stealth, sensor fusion | F-22, F-35, J-20, Su-57, J-35 | 5 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 5 |
From Territorial Defence to Power Projection
Now let's turn our attention to production. Without delving into the full history of Chinese security and capability doctrine, it's important to understand that China has moved from static homeland and coastal air defence, where the PLA was the major actor, to "limited war actions under high-tech conditions" (USCC, 2007), and then toward a strategic force capable of deep strikes and independent missions with a greater involvement of the PLAAF and the People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN).
This paradigm shift is linked to the Gulf War (1990–91), which demonstrated the dominance of high-tech Western air power and questioned a PLAAF numerically large but technologically lagging behind, highlighting both its technological and doctrinal gap. Added to this is the need to protect Chinese interests located at distance or overseas, such as Taiwan, the South/East China Sea, and the "string of pearls" (sea lines of communication). This has led the PLAAF's missions to expand beyond air defence and support to the army/navy, adding roles like long-range precision strike, air superiority over contested regions, strategic transport, and contribution to joint aerospace operations.
Naturally, replacing older aircraft with more technologically advanced models comes at a cost, increasing China's defence spending from around $77 billion in 2011 to $250 billion in 2025 (ECNS, 2025). China is not clearly stating how much money it allocates to its diverse branches of the military; it is generally considered being between 21% and 25% of the budget. Therefore, it can be assumed that at least $52.5 to $62.5 billion is spent on aviation. By way of comparison, the estimated air force expenditure of the United States (air force, navy, army) for the same year was between $273 and $308 billion, and that of Russia between $30 and $45 billion (SimpleFlying, 2025).
To add a further layer to the fog of war, production figures for Chinese military aircraft are also not disclosed. Nevertheless, current estimates suggest, for multi-role fighter aircraft, that the number of aircraft produced per year by Chinese companies exceed 240. This output is broadly broken down as follows: 40 for the J-10C Vigorous Dragon, and more than 100 for the J-16 Hidden Dragons and for the J-20 Mighty Dragon.
Annual Aircraft Output
By comparison, the US has announced approximately 36 F-16s, 36 F-15s, 150 F-35s (it seems that 43% of the F-35 production is for export) and an unknown number of F-18s (which are gradually phased out), for a total of more than 222 aircraft (SimpleFlying, 2025). Even accounting for this significant export share, the numbers speak for themselves: China produces more combat aircraft each year for its own forces than the US, a trend mirrored at sea where the PLAN has already surpassed the US Navy in terms of tonnage.
In addition to Chinese-built aircraft, China continues to operate Russian-made combat aircraft (among others), namely 32 Su-27s, 97 Su-30s and 24 Su-35s (IISS, The Military Balance 2007, 2012 and 2025). While not part of the latest generation, they are potent aircraft.
Despite higher US military spending, China appears to be leading the 2025 rankings as the country with the largest number of aircraft, namely 2,747, while the US peaks at 2,123, (it should kept in mind, however, that while indicative of industrial capacity, these figures reflect quantity only, leaving aside critical variables such as training, sustainment, and combat experience). Nevertheless, if we delve more in detail at the aircraft category (Table 3), it appears that the US has more tankers and transport aircraft than its Chinese counterpart. This highlights a greater strategic flexibility than China.
Two Strategies, Two Air Forces
This divergence is the consequence of two fundamentally different strategies. Until relatively recently, China’s strategy was mostly defensive, focused over territorial integrity and the protection of its immediate periphery, hence the anti-access/area-denial (A2/AD) architecture designed to deter or complicate an intervention by a foreign country. This is the reason why it possesses almost twice as many fighter jets and a substantial fleet of AWACS and electronic aircraft, while not requiring long-range air-power projection capabilities (for now).
By contrast, the US has oriented its military strategy toward global power projection, working on its capabilities to operate and sustain prolonged deployments across multiple theatres simultaneously. (A comparative table of the aircraft number Russia, the U.S. and China is available on Defense Blog)
Yet, as we have seen, the numbers alone tell only part of the story. Beyond fleet size and production rates lies, the question of how these last generation aircrafts compare in terms of capability and strategic purpose. Although the latest generation aircraft in service with the PLAAF and PLAN is the J35A, which appeared at the military parade in Beijing on 3 September 2025, information about it is extremely scarce. Thus, we will focus on how the J-20 fits into China's defence strategy.
Although many details regarding the J-20 remain unknown, what is certain is that it possesses a small radar signature (stealth capabilities), the capacity to low super cruise (fly supersonic without using afterburner), and the ability to datalink with drones and other friendly platforms (exchange data in real time via a secure digital link). In addition, its passive sensor should allow the detection of aircraft by their thermal and visual/infrared signature, instead of emitting radar waves (which makes the aircraft detectable), allowing the J-20 to see without being seen, in theory (CSIS ChinaPower, 2025).
Consequently, the J-20 is equipped with long-range air-to-air missiles such as the PL-15 - the same as the one used by the Pakistani against the Rafale - and is believed to possess a 145 km range (DefenseFeeds, 2025). It is also equipped with the PL-21, which is believed to be capable of engagement beyond 200km. It thus gives the aircraft extraordinary air superiority and long-range interception capabilities. These characteristics allow the aircraft to integrate perfectly within a dense sensor network, ground-based air defences such as those deployed by Beijing in the south China sea.
Joint exercises with Russia and Pakistan have also confirmed an increase in the mastery of beyond visual range combat, based on stealth technology, sensors and long-range missiles (Leiter, 2023), perhaps detrimental to traditional dogfighting skill. This echoes the U.S. experience in the Vietnam War, when confidence in missiles led to the belief that dogfighting, and even cannons, had become obsolete, resulting in early F-4 Phantom variants being fielded without internal cannon. The disastrous result in terms of US aircrafts that were shot down, led the military to reinstate the cannon and set up the famous Top Gun program.
One might argue that the US operates broadly comparable systems that cancel each other in the end, placing a greater emphasis on the pilot skills. This is both true and misleading, because, like a football team, China enjoys the advantage of "playing at home". Thus, it benefits from the knowledge of its geography and meteorology, the distance from Taiwan (short response times), and inherently strategic position, as illustrated by the basing layout shown on the map below.
Furthermore, if the stealth factor is set aside due to modern detection capabilities constantly evolving the balance gets more subtle. These modernisation include multi-band radar, new passive electromagnetic detection systems, and "trans-horizon" radars that exploit atmospheric layers for very long-range early warning detection, such as the France’s Nostradamus system (Ministère des Armées, 2025) and China’s JY-27A (Odin, 2025). In addition to this are bistatic radar sets (RadarTutorial, 2025), where the transmitter and receiver are not in the same locations.
Taken together, these constant improvements suggest that the decisive factor could ultimately come down to a more traditional indicator: the number of aircraft available. As a reminder, an American F-117 was shot down by the Yugoslav forces in 1999, using radar operating in the VHF or UHF bands, underscoring that stealth aircrafts are not invisible when confronted with adaptive air-defence systems (theaviationgeekclub, 2025).
Conclusion
This inevitably highlights alliances in the Indo-Pacific region. The United States benefit from a network of partners from Japan and South Korea to Australia and the Philippines, with further support from Singapore and possibly India. In theory, this network of alliances reinforces Washington's ability to project power and conduct operations close to China's periphery (Carnegie endowment, 2025).
China, on the other hand, does not possess a comparable system of alliances. However, it compensates this weakness through its geographical and geopolitical position and its economic weight over neighboring states, and the number of military assets.
In the end, allied support involves constant trade-offs between economic risk and security obligations.
In the end, allied support cannot be taken for granted, as partners must balance security commitments against the risk of economic retaliation. This complexity is particularly salient today, amid growing uncertainty over the Trump administration to uphold its alliance commitments and security agreements. Yet this complexity remains preferable to operating without meaningful alliances, particularly for sustained operations that depend on access, resupply and extensive logistical networks.
.jpg){kind=link}
