I think a medium thrust engine powered, medium weight fighter for the navy is a big mistake. A medium weight fighter:
- wont be able to carry enough fuel to compete with F-22, B-21 (which likely has an air-to-air role) or the coming USN 6th gen fighter in terms of range. The American aircraft willl be able to hold the PLAN carrier group at risk from beyond the range of this fighter.
- wont be able to generate as much electrical power from its medium weight engines to power sensors and DEWs as the American planes from their large thrust engines
- wont be able to fly higher or supercruise faster than the American planes
The next gen fighter needs to be a heavy fighter because the threats it will face will be heavy aircraft. The J-31 has as much chance against an F-22 as the JF-17 has against a MKI
I think your last sentence is a slight exaggeration, but I agree with your argument as to J-31's unsuitability as
the solution for PLANAF going forward.
Recall in the 1990s when the US was facing the prospect of losing its long legs in the form of the A-6 and F-14. Even in the benign post-Cold War environment, relying only on F/A-18s would've meant that the carrier's offensive
and defensive footprint would be only half the size that it used to be -- as anyone familiar with basic geometry knows, a linear reduction in range reduces the area that can be covered by the airwing by a much greater proportion. Conversely, a 25% increase in range increases the aircraft's potential area of action by more than 50%.
Hence the major criteria for Super Hornet:
more range.
Hence the major point of differention for F-35C vs. F-35A:
more range (even at the expense of performance).
