I should clarify that I agree that the WZ-X's persistence would make it perfect for missions at any distance from the mainland so they are indeed "perfect for 2IC". However, the argument for persistence for the GJ-X is less clear. Sortie generation is much more valuable, and time sensitive targets can be engaged with land/naval hypersonics.
Agree on the WZ-X role then.
For GJ-X, I see where you are coming from, but imo for the 2IC fixed wing strike role, it is less about sortie generation but rather a combination of deliverable effects/fires at effective distances.
Essentially, for GJ-X in the 2IC role I see two major reasons why it is quite well suited for it in a manner that other existing or forthcoming PLA fires cannot do:
1) large bomb load re-attack after (or simultaneously with) long range hypersonic/ballistic missile fires. The ability of GJ-X to carry a large load of equivalent 500kg glide bombs means that while initial air defenses are degraded by hypersonic/ballistic strikes and before defenses can be re-established, the GJ-X can get closer to the target (say, 60-100km away) and launch strikes to re-attack. This mission would be one that would be occurring at or slightly after the opening phases of a large scale missile strike at 2IC distances, with the aim of putting air defenses, infrastructure, runways, and individual airframes more permanently out of service.
2) ability to loiter while carrying large bomb loads of equivalent PGMs, to hit land based time sensitive targets (assuming at this point that high end opfor IADS are degraded), without having to pass the ISR chain back up to rocket forces or PLAN and then to launch long range hypersonics or ballistic missiles, and to instead allow GJ-X to prosecute the target itself. This mission would be one that occurs after large scale degradation of 2IC bases have occurred, and would be instead done to prevent re-establishment of opfor 2IC positions and prevent using 2IC bases as small scale sensor/shooting bases by the opfor, and thus in turn allow PLAAF and PLAN to have greater freedom of action at 2IC distances.
Both of the above roles essentially benefit from GJ-X's VLO status to enable it to get closer to a target, relatively large payload in terms of equivalent PGMs (thus no. of targets engaged), and long range/endurance to be able to flexibly re-task or loiter as needed.
If you have a constant stream of CH-7 sized bombers carrying payload, you in effect always have payload on station. You would also be able to do pulsed operations as situation demands. This beats one GJ-X on station for 12-24 hours.
For the above two mission profiles I described, CH-7 definitely wouldn't be able to do 2)
In terms of 1), it somewhat depends on the payload and range of CH-7, but based on the numbers we do have of it (TOW of under 10tons!), I cannot see it carrying much of a payload to 2IC distances.
By weight, CH-7 is probably even lighter than GJ-11/21, and GJ-11/21 is a UCAV whose range and payload is more optimized to 1ICish and beyond ranges.
To me the fact that the PLAAF built the GJ-X very much suggest that the PLA expect to be have roflstomp level westpac dominance on the time frame when these systems become operational, through a combination of stand off missiles, 6th gen tactical fighters and CSGs. I should add that I actually expect the PLA to build 1500-2000nm ranged VLO drone bombers given the cost effectiveness of these systems and the obvious naval possibilities.
I see GJ-X as one of the final arrows in the quiver to enable them to achieve that level of comprehensive westpac dominance.
Of course, in conflict if that level of success is achieved as planned, and strategic positions are secured, then certainly platforms like GJ-X, WZ-X, CSGs and so forth (SSNs/SSGNs, future H-20 etc) will be able to safely have the strategic initiative to conduct missions and raids outside of westpac distances to central pacific, southern pacific, and beyond...
As for 1500-2000nm VLO UCAVs, in theory such a UCAV could sit between the weight class of GJ-11 and GJ-X. Though I also think GJ-X could probably perform that mission fairly well too given its large size would enable long endurance missions at those distances without having to introduce another airframe family. But who knows.
It is interesting looking at CH7 several years ago and thinking that it looked like potentially a very impressive platform. And now we have more impressive platform that has already flown. It seems CH7 is basically an export project. Whereas GJ11/21 has cornered the main UCAV role for the next 5 to 7 years.
TBH even when CH-7 emerged, once we knew what size profile it had, I felt it was something that didn't really suit the PLA's needs, considering at the time we already knew they'd committed to GJ-11.
