|
>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. |