Keep in mind that as technology improves you might be able to get more RCS reduction for cheaper. Also, supposedly part of the J-35/XY development work is being put into making the manufacturing process cheaper and simpler. The J-35/XY may not cost as much per unit of capability as the J-20, just as was the intentions with the F-35 vis a vis the F-22.
Definitely, but that cascades down even further. So an even simpler plane might be even cheaper than JXY, just as JXY might be cheaper than J20. It's all about the exact price/effectiveness curve and that's something we don't have insight in. If for example the curve flattens down so quickly that you simply can't eek out more meaningful savings without sacrificing a lot of capabilities - then that's the bottom which will decide the design of the planes and composition of plaaf. The more complex and costly jxy is - the lower the chances are that will happen. But if jxy is designed to be quite cheap and simple then a single engine plane design will have a harder time competing.
If you want a credible medium weight fifth generation fighter, I think something like F-35 or something like J-XY/J-35 will be the minimum of what you need.
The "limited capabilities" that you describe IMO are unacceptable for an "affordable/mainstay" 5th generation fighter.
IMO what a "mainstay/affordable" 5th generation fighter requires is having equivalent or better stealth to a high end heavy weight fighter (F-22, J-20 etc), similar or better sensors, but whose cost savings are primarily through larger scale production, more affordable and maintainable stealth, and smaller size/weight.
Well i agree that one of the F-35s is the minimum plaaf would find useful. Only difference is that it seems you may be thinking of F-35A while I am seeing the F-35B as that minimum point. F-35, to be designed from the start to be just a conventional take off plane, to be designed around a 160-ish kn or more powerful engine, to be designed to carry as much fuel and armaments as F-35B carries, to have the same avionics - would in fact be at the very least on par with an actual F-35B, even with its more powerful engine. And likely in some regards like agility/acceleration/fuel consumption even a bit better. Possible downsides, but ones stemming from PLAAF's operational needs might be not as good stealth in some sectors and shorter life span due to less beefy construction.
Of course, this VERY much depends on the engine performance. If for some reason WS15 will not be able to deliver at least 160 kn of thrust in a good weight class, then the prospects of a single engine fighter drop quite a bit. But given that WS10 is up to 140 kn or so, I do find it unlikely reaching at least 160 kn would be problematic for WS15.
It really is about nuances, as i too agree scale of production, affordable maintenance and smaller size is the goal. We just differ on the exact curve of it, as I do believe there's some savings to be had in the 11 ton empty weight region, without seriously compromising performance. While other people may believe 13 ton or so is where performance can be kept adequate.
In your vision for 1000 J-XY planes for the PLAAF, how many carrier based J-XYs do you see the PLANAF procuring, and how many J-20s do you see the PLA procuring?
The 1000 JXY vision was only if no single engine fighters were procured for PLAAF. And of course, to even get to a 1000 airframes just for PLAAF, many years would have to pass.
In such a case i guess around 2040 we might see:
800 J20 fighters/next gen big fighters (with likely 700 being J20)
1000 PLAAF's JXY
A few hundred J16 remaining
A few hundred J10 variant planes remaining
A few hundred either more strike oriented J20 variants or novel design planes, which may include various large unmanned designs.
roughly 200 bombers (H6 and H20 mix)
In addition to those, PLANAF might operate:
300-ish JXY carrier variants
Possibly less than 100 various flanker variants
200-ish either more strike oriented J20 variants or novel design planes, which may include various large unmanned designs.
Possibly a few dozen H6 variants.
Of course, the above basically suggests 50% bigger air forces than PLAAF/PLANAF have today, combined.
If a single engine plane IS in the cards, then i envision only barely bigger total numbers, but PLAAF getting a lot less (possibly none?) JXY planes. And some more J20 class planes/strikers. Roughly lets say 1200 J20/ strike variant/new unmanned strikers and 1000 single engine fighters, if no JXY is present. With PLANAF numbers remaining roughly the same as in previous table.
And more importantly, it's not like a clean sheet, single engine medium weight 5th gen fighter will be able to cut corners anyway -- it will still have the same requirements as a land based J-XY/J-35 derivative, the only main difference is it would be using a single high thrust engine rather than two medium thrust engines.
The requirements for stealth, MTOW/size, payload, range, production scale, maintainability, would be the same for both prospective options, the only difference being the specific procurement and operating costs of being powered by one high thrust engine versus two medium thrust engines.
This is where i have a different opinion. FC31 is not necessarily what PLAAF wants. It may indeed be just a demonstrator roughly based on what AVIC thought an export market will seek from a fighter. While FC31 derived design, for PLANAF, if it's changed enough, may be more or less what PLANAF will want, that too will not necessarily be what PLAAF wants. It may very well that PLAAF will explicitly want less payload and less stealth, for example. Even less range wanted might be possible. (given the trade offs of performance/cost) But it's all about nuances at this level so it's hard to go into such unknown details.
