[talldayo]

> Who else can redesign a proper 5th gen except US and PRC.

We don't even know if China's jets are 5th gen. The J-20 is a joke compared to the F-22 despite having 20 of lead time since America's 5th gen debut. If the US is using F-35s to simulate dogfighting a Chinese dual-engine air superiority platform, it's a sign they don't take them entirely seriously. After all, the F-16 is technically a better dogfight aggressor in USAF simulations.

China is starting to see the fruits of their own aerospace investments, but they clearly haven't got parity even with the US's oldest 5th gen inventory. China is too cagey with J-35 information for a serious comparison to the F-35. The J-20 was laughed out of the room when it was announced it couldn't supercruise without engine overhauls, and it still struggles to hit Mach 2 with a combat load. The H20 hasn't even been formally unveiled yet, and it's doubtful it will reach feature parity with the B-2. The entire lineup is inherently questionable.

> And why would PLAAF they clone the strategic boondoggles that is F35Bs?

Uhh... Naval operations?

Look, you're entirely right about the gimped range and the G limits of the F-35B. But the US selected it because there are damning tactical implications from a stealth fighter that can VTOL and carry AMRAAMs. The dogfighting specs really aren't even that relevant if you can get the standard A2A compliment into the air fast enough to fight. The value an F-35 can provide on the deck of an amphib or destroyer is immense and unmatched by any adversary. Screw the smaller range, you're on a goddamn boat! China would absolutely make the F-35B... if they could.

> NGAD isn't going back to drawing board after 10 years of development to have entire CONOPS reevaluated because of SU57.

NGAD can take as long as it needs. There isn't credible competition to America's air superiority platforms and any PRC victory in the Pacific, now or in the forseeable future (next 5-10 years), would have to be won through attrition. China knows this, it's why their shipyards are at-capacity in anticipation of needing the materiel. Taiwan manufactures their own antishipping missiles and America has 50 years of stockpiled AGM-84s. A balls-to-the-wall engagement between both powers could result in a hundred sinked ships in one day. The Taiwan strait is small, and once the PRC goes mask-off they'll have to hide every part of their Navy they don't want destroyed.

I don't doubt that NGAD is taking the PLAAF into account, but I'm pretty sure they know that China's 5th gen jets struggle to maintain 4th generation operational capacity. America's foothold on 5th gen air combat is tenured and proven - China is clinging to a marketing bark over bite strategy that most people have rightfully ignored. If China was certain in their tactical capabilities then they would also copy the United State's strategy of limiting their aircraft inventory. The mass production is a tacit admission that China intends to destroy a lot of J-20s and J-35s.

[maxglute]

And we don't even know if US jets are 5th gen. What recent official US documentation that dismiss J20 as not 5th gen (except PLA old classification system that -1 gen across board). Using 5th gen as aggressor to simulate 5th BECAUSE 5th gen isn't about kinematics (i.e. F16) - it's about sensors and other capabilities, why 4th gen gets stomped by 5th gen chillaxing from BVR. Why F35 fine with being more sluggish multirole vs F16.

It's well known PRC turbojet is not at parity with US, but it's also competitive - i.e. not many generations behind, and by all credible accounts have surpassed RU in recent years. The point is they went from having to import engines to having entire supply chain to build 100s of cores at scale, FULLY DOMESTICALLY within last 10 years. That's not just fruits, that's an orchard in terms of statusquo disruption.

>F35Bs

I don't think PLA wouldn't make SVTOL with gimped range if they could, because SVTOL trade for range morely optimized for IndoPac/PRC backyard. SVTOL was good compromise for marines wanting to keep VTOL and select F35 partners with amphib size carriers when program was conceived 30+ years ago, when range/operations was designed around NATO conflict where SVTOL was strategic using makeshift and RU was just across the horizon. That's made increasingly irrelevant now that longer range strikes are proliferating to the point where liability of gimped range means launch platforms (amphibs) can't even operate close enough to launch, which is extra but kick when gimping Bs also gimped A, Cs.

> competition to America's air superiority

The credible competition is the entire PLA concentrated in theatre to prevent US from establishing air superiority in the first place, so in that sense NGAD can take as long as needed because there likely isn't an NGAD CONAP that works againsts PLA, hence the program reset. I would say there isn't a credible way for US to establish/sustain air superiority because superior US aviation can't be sustained. But you're right about attrition, PRC fine with losing entire PLAN if it means US loses entire USN, since PRC has 300x+ ship building capacity to reconsitute faster post war, and global security architecture breaks when USN gone.

> they know that China's 5th gen jets struggle to maintain 4th generation

Again which reports suggest US/DoD thinks PRC struggle with 5th gen operating as 4th gen. What's being written suggest they know the opposite. Excessive amount of words reports have been written on PLA aviation in last 5 years... the opposite of "rightly ignored"... it's borderline fixation. I uppose to mass production of F35s is tacit admission that US is going to lose F35s. Or USAF regrets deprecating all the tooling for F22s when they realized need to for more 5th gen airframes.

>limiting their aircraft inventory

J20 for F22, J35 fo F35 in high/low 5th gen mix. So they are, in fact replicating US high/low mix. J20 production is only 100 / year, about F35 production. The parsimonious interpretation - maturing Chinese aerospace is at point to match US in production, they want 2500+ 5th gen fleet just like US. Short/medium term they're just trying to close the 200 vs 600 5th gen airframe gap. If anything it's tacit admission they're comfortable enough with their 5th gen efforts to mass produce. Or that procurement wise, US seems to be the one who is NOT certain of their 5th gen, holding on to F18s, and now F15EX to plug the low mix gap, while figuring out how to modernize high mix with NGAD.

[talldayo]

> It's well known PRC turbojet is not at parity with US, but it's also competitive

Yeah, and I'm not trying to dunk on the value of mass-producing mediocre turbojets. The JF-17 is a masterclass in taking an okay engine and selling it in a package that makes it immensely more valuable. China's cruise missiles have come into a class of their own with a wide variety of cheap expendable engines to pick from; few others are as willing to export it with no questions asked. Making last-gen jets is a booming business.

That being said, you can't really write off the "-1" generation jets because a lot of them haven't been upgraded to anything else. There's certainly a lot of potential to get them into the sky with better engines later down the line, but quite literally that technology doesn't exist in many cases. The J-35 comes with two engines - count 'em, two.

> That's made increasingly irrelevant now that longer range strikes are proliferating to the point where liability of gimped range means launch platforms (amphibs) can't even operate close enough to launch

That's where naval aviation shines, though. The Taiwan strait is tiny - once China presses the red button it will be very easy to identify and attack both the primary airfields China relies on as well as any ships in port. Having a high number of amphibs operating in formation with a few Arleigh Burkes escorting a supercarrier puts extreme pressure on an already strained PLAA/PLAN. With China's investment in naval capacity it's surprising to see them put so much emphasis on a CATOBAR approach that presents such an easy target for adversaries. I think STOVL is highly underestimated in wartime, but we've yet to see a real engagement that tests it so I'll agree to disagree if you'd prefer.

> I uppose to mass production of F35s is tacit admission that US is going to lose F35s.

The US has export obligations, and they're pretty far behind on delivered F-35s by most accounts.

The interest in China's aviation capacity isn't really an indictment of their superiority either. It's mostly reciprocal at this point - Chinese journals had obsessed over American capabilities for the past 2 decades, so now America wants to see what they've learned. In some places they've learned a lot - in other places they're making plainly inflated claims.

> US seems to be the one who is NOT certain of their 5th gen, [...] while figuring out how to modernize high mix with NGAD.

And I don't think that's a bad spot to be in. The F-22 has been on it's way out for some time now - the writing was on the walls if you look at the financials. The F-35 had a troubled development but it's rollout hasn't been markedly worse any other stealth aircraft. F/A-18s and F-15s are going to continue to stick around as missile trucks, but they too will be replaced, maybe even the B-21 if it's AESA radar is good enough.

At the end of the day, you gotta look at it like this; China is overpromising and underdelivering on a relatively constant basis. They did good, and their game of catch-up has yielded them competent advancements and even marketable tech for export. America still did 5th gen better, albeit at extreme expense, and designed their own jets from scratch to boot. If you are afraid of China's plainly fear-coded marketing lifted straight out of Soviet strategy, you're probably also the sort of person that stands up and claps to the TV when Tim Cook says "best iPhone yet" every year.

[maxglute]

>two engines

So does F18, F15... NGAD renders as well. Current theories on NGAD cost cutting design would fall back to 1 engine, because 1 engine is compromise, especially for naval aviation that prefers redundancy. Hence F35B stovl requirements fucking up rest of models due to commonality requirements that limited F35s to single engine, which is why design driving next gen of development moving towards more purpose built airframes for each service requirements... and for 6gen, essentially every 6gen program currently is presumably going to be, from prototypes to renders, 2 engines, kf21, TF Kaan, Tempest/GCAP, FCAS... everyone is reverting back to 2 engines. Count'em, two.

Not to writing off 1 engine. US aero is sufficiently advanced/reliable/optmitized to get away with 1 engine for some fighters, and koodoos for that. But there's also benefits to 2 engines (kinematically, i.e. theres things superhornets are much better optmized for that F35s are not). Having to run 2 engines because 1 engine performance bad would be valid cope if not for the fact that 2 engines also have advantages and and disadvantages can be mitigated through industrial base... i.e. if you can churn out tons of cores to equip 1000s of twin engine fighters, it's not an issue and maybe net benefit. Especially during war when airframes would get shot before components reach end of life. 4th gen fighters are either going to get replaced or shot down, J11s running old RU engines that's PIA to maintain matters less in that context.

>naval aviation shines

I think that's where naval aviation becomes increasingly irrelevant. When IRBMs pushes A2D2 amphibs from operating useful distances. Wargames trying to interdict in TW scenario has CSHs operating from outside 2IC, with tanking in between for the hope you can get carrier air wings in range while keeping carrier at safeish distances (where PLA can "only" deliver 100s of AsHMs instead of 1000s). That bubble is going to get further, meanwhile amphibs+stovl are stuck in bubble where they can't operate permissively, or at at all without being hit by AShMs in 30 minutes. Hence war games that presumes US have chance _require_ distributed and hardened 1IC basing (mainly AGILE in JP). The expectation in planning/procurement (i.e. state of US ship building) for naval aviation is low relative to shelthering air frames under a shit load of concrete on land, even if land closer. TLDR is in TW scenario where STVOL mattered, PRC has already lost, because F35Bs mattering means US operating completely right next to PRC or with uncontested tanking, i.e. not just air supremacy, but utterly crippling PLA mainland fires.

I also don't think PRC is putting so much emphasis on catobar or even carrier OPs in general. PLAN carrier procurement is glacial relative to industrial capacity. 2.5 carriers in 15 years is indicator of being profoundly not serious about carriers, versus PLAN churning out subsurface even when their subs were shit. And now by accounts PLAN 1gen behind US in SSN, and they're building out shipyards that can pump 4-6 SSNs per year. They're serious about subs.

>bad spot to be in

Nor is it a "good" spot to be in. Rejiggering air composition to backstop with 4th gens for roles planners wanted to task with 5th gens because 5th gen and now 6th gen programs haven't delivered to expectations is no thte spot US planners wanted or anticipated to be in.

>interest in China's aviation / China is overpromising and underdelivering on a relatively constant basis / inflated claims

What inflated claims? That PRC can in fact build 5th gen fighters, like DoD/officials recognize? What credible reporting suggest PLA 5th gen performs like 4th gen... that J35 has basic functionality? There was like one report from early 2010s abotu J35/FC31 prototype experiencing difficulties during initial test, i.e. on par with F35 can't fly in lightening, have serious avionic issues 10+ years ago. But no one pretends F35 isn't 5th gen because of intial (and ongoing) teething issues. I did not suggest PRC aviation superiority, but pointing out none of official/credible writngs suggest PLA is making inflated claims... because anyone who watches PLA is frustrated by just how little PLA make claims. At the end of the day, PLA is notoriously opaque, if anything the pattern is rarely over promise anything and deliver out of the blue, i.e. systems get acquired and revealed much later than western MIC reporting. Past 10 years of PLA engine development are countless articles of them talking about technical difficulties and delays and only recently celebrating indigenous self sufficiency / passing RU aerospace. Versus the shitshow that is F35 program, where most popular discourse is parrots lockheed marketing materials vs dod reporting. Or unending wank over NGAD even months before program explodes. If there's anything to be afraid of, it's how LITTLE PRC markets, meanwhile analysts have to count tail numbers from social media photos or airframes from satellites to get actual sense of PLAAF buildup.