OH, so we're talking a twin engine sized fighter with only one engine? Hmm that changes things, I thought we were talking about a F-35 sized single engine striker.
I actually didn't consider that, but I was more advocating the twin engine approach because of the greater range, size/volume it offered, along with potential for supercruise (see below) rather than the total payload it could haul.
Ah I just realized I forgot the fact that my vision of a twin engined striker would have supercruise as well -- commonality with the J-20 in engines, but less capable A2A avionics.
Maybe I've been taking carlo kopp too seriously but I feel a striker, if it's to be used for first day door breaking, penetrative strikes, should have supercruise to increase survivability and lower response time. To futureproof it, design a large internal volume to carry larger radii weapons than a couple of FT series bombs would be beneficial as well, not to mention the plane could (and should) be used for hard to crack anti ship missions as well.
Hmm that makes sense, but I remain reluctant, mostly because even though the less capable striker (I'm gonna call J-2X) may be cheaper and able to be purchased in large numbers, they're still individual 5th generation planes with the maintenance problems 5th generation fighters come with. If J-2X has a similar stealth coating to "J-19" the costs of having twice or three times as many numbers of proposed J-2X for J-19 could quickly add up in terms of maintenance, specialized basing etc.
That is true, but what if you invested more into each heavy striker than a cheap striker to make them more survivable so it'll be harder to lose them in the first place? Give them the necessary engines and fuel load for long supercruise transit.
I do see the benefit of larger numbers of less capable strikers compared to smaller numbers of more capable strikers and vice versa.
Agreed, and I think both our striker suggestions hold to this.
I'm not sure about that. PLAAF may want to give SAC another project to work on beyond their tinkering with flankers -- and I feel SAC isn't the who we should give a single engined medium 5th gen, large order project to. Political considerations aside, SAC could certainly do a good job of turning their failed J-Xx proposal into a striker imho, because they'll be selling it as a striker not the standards PLAAF set for J-XX. If they can convince PLAAF for a need of a striker and CAC is too busy with J-20 and/or unable to produce a variant of J-20 to compete... there's certainly a good chance.
It depends on what kind of force composition we're thinking for PLAAF I suppose. And a J-19 could have potential for carrier variants too especially if it has a more conventional configuration compared to J-20 -- there will be a tender for a heavy 5th gen carrier fighter in due time.
I'm actually thinking of the striker along the lines of FB-22, albeit with slightly greater maneuverability traded for slightly smaller bombload with the J-20 to make up a collective "air superiority and strike" high.
Basically in my mind the PLAAF will not have a hi-lo mix of fifth gens alongside it's massed fourth gen fleet, but a hi low mix of high capability fifth gens and low capability fourth gens.
An attractive idea indeed -- but supercruise and replacing those two bombs with ARMs or AShMs would be better. In my mind the future striker would have a role in anti CVBG/SAG/anti ship missions as well. Especially with the way F--35 turned out, I feel like having provision for carrying larger weapons internally is just as important as stealth.
my counter proposal, a fighter with 2000+ km range on internal fuel, BVR advantages of stealth, airframe optimized more for speed than maneuverability, twin WS-15 for supercruise, WVR or BVR missiles with HMS, and able to hold two KD-88/AShM sized missiles internally (a variant with folded wings)/or equivalent number of thousand pounders, SDB + side weapon bays which can hold an A2A missile each. To be acquired in relatively small numbers.
I see the benefit of both proposals, it's a question of quality/quantity if we're forking the same upfront price. though I think a larger fighter leaves more room for growth and would be more flexible and capable too which can make up for the cost of losing one J-19 compared to J-2X. Especially if J-19 has supercruise and is harder to shoot down in the first place. but then again maybe I'm just biased because I like the F-111 and FB-22 too much.
This is all fun speculation, we'll see what SAC offers sometime this year hopefully. I'd like to know whether the source of this single engined SAC fighter has proven reliable in the past. Huitong is currently sticking with his twin engine J-19 theory so hmm yes.
