And that there is the fundamental problem with the F35 programme.
It was a programme conceived at a time when the idea of US air dominance being challenged was simply inconceivable to US planners and leaders. Thus the F35 was designed to maximise the benefit of air dominance without much in the way of thought or investment on how that air dominance was to be first achieved. Since that was basically taken as given, with stealth alone deemed sufficient as they were never really supposed to face off against enemy 5th gens. Not before US 6th gens shows up to do the heavy lifting in any case.
The J35 would have had countering F35s and other 5th gens as a central design requirement. Hence its focus on speed and agility over carrying capacity. It also has an oversized nose, like all modern Chinese fighters, so should carry a noticeably bigger radar.
It would be an interesting match up between J35 and F35, where you are pitching better raw aerodynamic performance, radar and (probably) all aspect stealth against better internal weapons load and range/endurance and airframe numbers.
One thing I would watch out for on the J35 is J20 like swing arm launchers for the mean weapons bay. This could easily be made modular and detachable, so the main thing to look out for would be cut-outs in the main weapons bay doors near the centreline where they could mount such swing arms.
Given that countering enemy 5th gens would be a primary design requirement for the J35, and the nature of stealth significantly reducing detection and engagement ranges as well as the performances of radar guided AAMs, it’s very likely that stealth v stealth fights will end up in WVR. In which case not having IRAAMs will prove to be a massive handicap and limitation while having it could provide a near unassailable advantage against an opponent down to guns only.
The obvious solution has already been developed by the J20 with its side bay swing arms. Adding a pair of such arms on both sides of the central dividing bulkhead would allow you to swing at least one missile down into the airstream ready for immediate launch. Then you can minimally open the mean weapons bay to swop in the empty arm for the other with a fresh missile in a matter of seconds.
If you want to be able to externally mount both missiles, you need a fairly thick central divider, which will needlessly limit your mean weapons bay, so don’t feel worth it as how often realistically would you need to launch two IRAAMs at basically the same time? So I think limiting it to a single IRAAM at a time is an acceptable compromise, and would still give you overwhelming advantage in WVR against an F35 with only guns.
In theory, you can also design a gun pod to fit on such a swing arm. So you go in with one IRAAM and a gun pod for backup so you don’t need an internal gun baked into the design.
I think you are going the wrong direction with your vision for 5th gen vs 5th gen (or high tech air power vs high tech air power).
Equipping 5th gen aircraft with SRAAMs and cannons with the aim to defeat opfor 5th gen aircraft in the WVR domain is equipping them with last ditch self defense weapons with the expectation that each side's aircraft will only be able to stumble upon each other at WVR and be unable to engage each other at BVR ranges, thus have to resort to closer range engagements.
I think the complete opposite will be the case -- that as high tech air forces advance and seek to counter opposing 5th gen and above fighters, they will aim to further advance their BVR capabilities. This will be done through a combination of things:
- Continuing to develop and advance sensors and networking aboard fighter aircraft
- Pursuit of friendly offboard sensing capability -- most prominently this is seen in MUMT, where substantial offboard A2A UAV capability will be in the form of forward deployable, attritible sensor nodes that are networked with manned fighter aircraft and friendly weapons A2A UCAV platforms.
- Development of more sophisticated BVR weapons, especially in terms of guidance. This is not only in the form of terminal guidance (which is likely to be multi-modal including advanced AESA and also ImIR) but also more agile, dynamic and robust midcourse guidance as well.
- Also, simply being able to "outmass" the enemy in terms of the number of airborne, VLO, sensor and weapons platforms you have in the aerial battlespace at any one time.
- and finally, your generic ECM, ECCM capabilities and so on.
.... In other words, the way that future aerial warfare between opposing forces that are VLO and advanced, will be one where each side tries to achieve networking superiority over each other qualitatively and quantitatively, where the side with superior system of system of systems will win.
Pursuing WVR weapons and cannons is not an adequate counter for the way that future aerial warfare will go. At best, they can be maintained as a very last line, last ditch self defense capability.
But the most high yield, efficient gains in capability in a VLO vs VLO scenario, will be advances in networking, sensors and BVR capabilities.
