But does committing to the J-XY - a second 2-engined fighter - make sense when J-20 is already there? And why J-XY and not yet another development of the basic FC-31?
Because compared to J-20, J-XY will be:
- a smaller aircraft (which has benefits in costs compared to the larger J-20 -- see comparisons of costs of flight hours of F/A-18A/D to F-15C for example)
- uses different engines (specifically, not the valuable WS-15 which will be essential to both J-20 and likely 6th gen production)
- designed using newer production technologies of J-XY, that cannot be easily duplicated on existing J-20 production lines that would also allow J-XY to be more maintainable
Why J-XY? Because the development of the navalized J-XY is already fully confirmed and committed to by the PLAN, meaning all of the development of the airframe, flight testing, avionics, weapons separation tests, logistics, supply of spare parts and subsystems.
A land based J-XY which removes the carrier specific provisions on the navalized J-XY (nose gear, structural reinforcement and landing gear, tailhook, folding wings) but which keeps everything else, can maintain substantial commonality of logistics, tactics, training, maintenance, and knowledge between the naval J-XY and land J-XY.
Another development of the basic FC-31 would require developing a whole new aircraft based off FC-31, rather than leveraging the development, subsystems, and logistics that would already have been raised and paid for with the naval J-XY.
SEFA brings economy (=ultimately more capable force for the same amount of money), SEFA (cleen sheet development really) brings capabilities that J-20(or J-XY) lacks.
Then, it isn't like PLAAF is on borrowed time - J-10 production line is alive and produces a reasonably modern fighter.
As I wrote in my last post, it goes without saying that a single engine fighter is cheaper to operate than a twin engine fighter of equal weight/generation/technology.
But I think you've basically ignored every other argument I made in the post about why
for the PLA, pursuing a SEFA doesn't make sense.
In addition, we still have to take the recent CAC SEFA rumor into consideration.
Do we though?
Sure, we've had some inklings of rumours of a CAC SEFA on and off for a few years -- but as far as the credibility of them goes, they are arguably the lowest we have of any of the various combat aircraft projects that we keep tabs on.... far below even the JH-XX, for example.
If we want to consider the idea of a CAC SEFA seriously, we need something with more substance and more consistency.
Furthermore, the "rumour" of the CAC SEFA was not for a land based fighter, but for a
navalized fighter to "compete" with SAC's navalized J-XY for the PLAN's 5th generation carrierborne fighter competition!
That rumour was frankly questionable to begin with, and barely two weeks later we get the emergence of the naval J-XY prototype exactly as we expect, without another sound of a CAC naval SEFA. All of this, coming from years and years of consistent rumours that have said a navalized FC-31 derivative was chosen by the PLAN as the basis for their naval 5th gen, as we expected.
See below:
Still nothing, only a rumour? Maybe @huitong can explain a bit more ...
www.sinodefenceforum.com
There are no glass roofs here. Need more engines=expand production.
China is doing perfectly fine with simultaneous WS-13 production. WS-15 is simply another engine in the end.
On the contrary, I fully believe there are limits.
There are always bottlenecks in expanding production.
Furthermore, expanding production also takes time.
Then, there's the rather big factor to consider that a SEFA is a single engine aircraft, and we have to assess how long it would take for the PLA to be confident to equip WS-15 on a single engine frontline fighter. It took about 10 years between WS-10 entered service on J-11B and WS-10 entering service on J-10C.
====
I do understand where you're coming from -- I truly do.
The principle of a single engine fighter being cheaper to operate than a twin engine fighter when both are of similar weight/generation/technology, is one that everyone accepts, including myself.
That principle isn't being challenged.
What
is being challenged, is that as of late 2021, whether it makes sense for the PLA to pursue development of a clean sheet SEFA, when considering the context of the various other active projects they have going on that will consume aerospace resources; when considering the state of their engine development and production capacity into the near term and medium term future and the demands for various engines (namely WS-15); and when considering the emerging role of UCAVs as a much cheaper tactical combat platform than even SEFAs.
Let me ask a different question -- with every year that passes where a SEFA does not emerge, at which year do you think it would not make sense for the PLA to pursue a SEFA, and to simply adopt a land based J-XY in large numbers as its medium weight 5th generation aircraft instead?
