I'm pointing out that the supposed "criteria" for CSBA's ideal fighter is actually reminiscent of the F-35 in more ways than one, with the exception of supermaneuverability. The F-35C meets CSBA's combat radius criteria (exceeds it quite a margin actually) and has potent BVR capability to boot.
I think the CSBA's air to air fighter isn't described in that great of detail beyond talking about emphasizing kinematics, air to air function/air to air sensors and its 500+ nmi range. F-35C could definitely fit that bill but I imagine they're talking about a substantially larger fighter that is able to operate at a similar combat radius to the F-35C but with higher kinematic capability and potentially a greater payload and endurance as well.
However I'll concede that this is too vague to discuss in more detail, but I rest my case saying that there is a valid argument that the USN may be interested in a bigger and more air superiority oriented fighter than what the F-35C offers.
At this point, the only advantage the J-20 would bring to the equation would be raw range (GlobalSecurity estimates a 2000 km radius for the J-20 as opposed to the FC-31's 1250 km).
I'd argue there are quite a few other potential advantages.
Greater maturity/lower risk and likely earlier deliver than naval FC-31, greater commonality with the air force, potentially greater payload (considering J-20's ventral bay is at least as big as FC-31s and it has the benefits of side SRAAM bays too -- but we don't know whether naval J-20 and naval FC-31 offers came with enlarged weapon bays or not... however even then I think it would be a surprise to all of us if the smaller naval FC-31 ended up with a larger payload bay than the larger naval J-20), larger sensor size... among others.
The FC-31 can carry air-to-surface weaponry in the form of four 500 kg bombs or 4 supersonic ASMs, all carried internally, as confirmed at the 2016 Zhuhai Airshow.
Considering FC-31's size/volume and the configuration of its weapons bays, I would be quite surprised if you are trying to argue that any weapons that FC-31 can carry internally are ones which J-20 would not also be able to carry.
Considering that the 100K ton carriers won't likely be ready until well into the 2030s, the PLAN would need a 5th generation platform that could equip its vessels in the meantime. And then you have other factors working against the J-20's favor, such as flyaway cost and servicing cost.
Well into the 2030s? Maybe, but not necessarily. I wouldn't be surprised if the first of the 100k ton carriers enters service in the late 2020s. Not to mention the 85k ton carriers would be able to handle J-20 sized aircraft more than comfortably too.
And sure, flyaway cost and servicing cost would be higher for J-20, but J-20 also has lower risk/earlier delivery than FC-31 as there have been many more J-20s flying than FC-31s with far more testing, not to mention it would likely offer a degree of commonality with the air force.
But I think we are getting too much into the nitty gritty of this -- the bottom line of my argument is that I think it is perfectly reasonable for the navy to have chosen J-20 as their future naval fighter if that is indeed their decision. It was probably a close contest, and we've both shown that there are arguments for and against both options, but at the end of the day I think it is sensible to say that both were
reasonable options and it was probably either one's competition to win (if a decision has indeed been made).
You seem to be trying to argue that it is very
unreasonable for the Navy to have potentially chosen the J-20 as the basis of its naval fighter, (and that FC-31 was the only logical option in your view) am I correct? If that is so, then I think we can both see that that is a much more difficult position to argue for and to defend than mine.
