There is no ~10 year technology gap like in-between F-22 and 35, however: FC-31(if it is the base aircraft for J-XY) and J-20 come from the very same technological level. -snipped for post length-
LRIP equivalent of J-XY/J-35 may begin 2025, or 2024 if they're fast. That would be a 9-10 year gap between LRIP of J-20.
By the time J-XY/J-35 begins production, there most definitely will be a 10 year gap.
Fortunately J-20 will be continuing production for quite a long time into the 2030s so it will be able to benefit to a degree from various advancements that J-XY/J-35 will enjoy wrt more maintainable stealth and more advanced production methods, but those will likely end up being a new variant of J-20 altogether that will make up only a fraction of the total production run of all J-20s ever produced.
So no, I wouldn't say that "larger production run, more maintainable stealth, more advanced production method" applies to J-20 in the same way.
Regarding WS-19, I'm not saying it is currently ahead of WS-15 in terms of readiness.
But what I am saying is that by the time we reach the mid to late 2020s, WS-19 will likely be very close to WS-15 in terms of readiness and more importantly expansion in production of both WS-19 and WS-15 can occur independent of each other and going into the 2030s the production of WS-15s alone I doubt will be able to satisfy requirements for J-20s, 6th gens, and a clean sheet single engine 5th gen.
====
If the goal is to expand 5th generation fleet size and preferably have the expansion in fleet size be more economical, there are essentially three options that I see going forwards;
A) Increase J-20 production and integrate new technologies and production methods into J-20 going forwards. Forgo a land based medium weight 5th generation fighter.
B) Introduce a land based J-XY/J-35 variant, twin engine medium weight 5th gen.
C) Introduce a clean sheet land based single engine medium weight 5th gen.
But as I wrote in my previous post, there are some other considerations to make as well, regarding both timeline and engine availability:
1. Such an aircraft should enter service before the end of the decade, preferably sooner rather than later. Speed and risk from project initiation to service is important, not only in general, but also for the PLA given the proliferation of 5th gens and additional high capability aircraft in the region. If a project can be 2-3 years faster than a competitor with lower risk (say, if the competitor is a clean sheet design), then that is a very desirable trait.
and,
2. Engine availability, where the medium weight land based 5th gen fighter's production in the above timeline and its powerplant should not be limited by the prioritization of WS-15 production for J-20s and 6th gen aircraft in the same period. Either there is enough WS-15 production to satisfy production of J-20, initial 6th gen aircraft AND said medium weight land based 5th gen aircraft --- OR, this aircraft should adopt an alternative powerplant configuration which is not limited by WS-15 production/availability.
IMO, based on the above two factors, which imo are likely prerequisites and limiting factors for PLA planning and procurement, I think that option B) introducing a land based J-XY/J-35 variant is able to meet those two criteria the most.
Option C), pursuing a clean sheet single engine design might be viable, as I wrote before in my last post, IF:
1. Said clean sheet design at least equally low risk and equally short time compared to a land based J-XY/J-35 derivative (to enter service in the late 2020s time period).... (Or alternatively, if the PLA pushes back the timeline for when they want a medium weight 5th gen to enter service)
AND,
2. If AECC was able to ramp up the production rate of WS-15 sufficiently to meet the production demand and timeline for J-20s, initial production 6th generation aircraft, and said single engine medium weight 5th gen aircraft in the late 2020s to early/mid 2030s time period.
Option A), increasing the production rate of J-20s is also certainly possible, and is able to fulfill criteria 1. as being a relatively low risk and time sensitive solution.... however the issue is criteria 2., whether production of WS-15 is able to be scaled appropriately upwards for massive expansion in production of J-20. There is ultimately also the fact that J-20 remains a heavy weight fighter, and compared to the medium weight designs of Option B) and Option C) that will incur additional costs independent of how many engines each aircraft has.
I'd also add that all of this discussion about a medium weight 5th gen fighter IMO is a little bit too laser focused on the cost benefits of single engine vs twin engine -- yes, operating an aircraft with a single high thrust engine can confer meaningful cost savings versus a design with twin medium thrust engines by virtue of having one less engine to maintain and operate.
However procurement of an aircraft is influenced by other factors beyond costs of operation/maintenance relating to engines alone.
Other important factors for both the industry and military side include the below, which I will weigh up for the respective single vs twin engine options:
- Other non-engine related operation/maintenance costs intrinsic to the aircraft's design and/or production methods
------ both a single engine and J-XY derivative/twin engine medium weight 5th gen option can include these in their programs and I do not see either having a leg up over the other,
draw
- Commonality, shared costs and shared upgrade paths with other aircraft variants over their lifetimes
------ both a single engine and twin engine design will obviously seek to share as much subsystems with other 5th gens as possible (J-20 and carrier based J-XY), however the twin engine J-XY land based derivative will be much more of a direct variant/sibling to the carrier based J-XY than the clean sheet single engine option. Much greater structural similarities, much greater ease in upgrade paths and shared components,
twin engine advantage
- Speed/time sensitivity and risk from starting the program to having an aircraft in service
------ a single engine clean sheet design will almost certainly take longer time and more risk and aerospace resources than a J-XY derivative,
twin engine advantage
- Bottlenecks/availability of any key subsystems (e.g.: specific engine types)
------ a single engine clean sheet design will inevitably require WS-15s, while a twin engine J-XY design will be using WS-19s. We know that demand for WS-15s will be high for J-20 production and initial 6th gen production, and in terms of aerospace industry the ability to mass produce WS-15s will likely prove more challenging than WS-19s in both of their initial/medium term phases given the larger blades of WS-15 compared to WS-19. WS-19 on the other hand will only be required for powering J-XY aircraft (carrier and land based).
Twin engine advantage, for now
- Distributing and maintaining experience and work across different companies in the industry in a reasonable manner and effective distribution of aerospace resources
------ a clean sheet single engine design and production could conceivably be done at SAC rather than CAC, but we already know that the carrier based J-XY is being developed at SAC to begin with. But then in turn you'll be having them develop a clean sheet design already when both SAC and CAC are already busy with J-XY and J-20 variants + 6th gen efforts, respectively. Is it wise to burden SAC or CAC with another new clean sheet design?
Twin engine advantage
So, on balance, comparing the strengths of a clean sheet single engine design vs a J-XY derived twin engine design and common benefits
Single engine strengths:
- Operating cost and maintainability benefits of a single engine
Twin engine strengths:
- Operating costs and upgrade costs/paths and certain shared logistics benefits of having a close carrier based variant
- Greater speed from project initiation to service and reduced risk
- Will not have same degree of engine bottleneck (WS-15 production/availability) as a single engine aircraft
- More sensible distribution of aerospace resources in context of SAC and CAC's other respective ongoing projects
Common strengths of both:
- Non engine related operating costs intrinsic to both aircraft's design and production
So, I happily agree that having a single engine versus two engines does confer engine specific operating costs and maintainability benefits.
However, given the overall force structure, naval procurement commonality potential, time sensitivity and risk requirements, and industry setup and limitations for the PLA's case specifically, I do not think the cost and maintainability benefits of a clean sheet single engine design vs a twin engine J-XY derivative are enough to outweigh the cumulative other strengths of the latter.
For the PLA, at this stage, I think if they want to expand their 5th gen fighter fleet by virtue of a medium weight 5th gen fighter, a twin engine J-XY derivative makes the most sense.