Even with stand off distance, that's technically what you're proposing when you're suggesting a stealth plane that gets closer.
Technically I suppose that is what I'm saying, but practically speaking, the non-stealthy plane won't even be relevant because it can't even get to the stand off launch point to begin without being shot down.
Putting it another way, both the stealthy plane and the non-stealthy plane both have the same requirements in this case -- to get within X range of a target to launch one's weapon. The stealthy plane can do it, while the non-stealthy plane simply cannot even get close to begin with.
[edit: this is the post where I finally understand what you mean by "greater distance... I address everything fully in the second half of this novel of a reply]
Lots of ways you could skin this cat. I did say that a JH-XX would make some things simpler and more straightforward, but you balance the difficulty of doing it some other way, with the difficulty of developing something new, hence why I'm dubious about interim engines being a viable solution. I just don't think reduced performance from interim engines would offer enough delta in capability to prefer developing a new platform with its associated costs. (An opinion though, of course),
It really depends on how long the aircraft would have to use interim engines for imo.
I agree, but your egress distance is still increased, and your distance to the interceptor still decreased, which is why I argue that getting closer increases the need for better kinematics.
I address this in greater detail below, but the key point when I said JH-XX's stealth reduces the need for kinematics during egress compared to a non-stealthy aircraft, is that both aircraft would be conducting egress under the same hypothetical conditions. That is obviously the only fair way to measure "ability to conduct egress", and I was under the assumption the only way in which my comparative statement would have made sense...
In other words, you're saying that the stealthy aircraft would have longer egress distance while the non-stealthy aircraft would have shorter egress distance, which is problematic because the operating assumption/requirement is that both aircraft need to get within an equal distance of the target in the first place to field the same ranged weapon and thus meaning both have equal egress distances (with the scenario being that the non-stealthy aircraft reached stand off range successfully undetected somehow).
Hence the point about other methods to achieve the same outcome. You could also get within stand off distance without being detected by increasing the range of your missiles, attacking early warning systems, or using escorts.
I would hazard to interpret "using other methods to achieve the same outcome" in a very loose way... One could technically send a fleet of fighters to engage the other side's CAP to allow one's non-stealthy strike aircraft to successfully get into stand off range to launch a strike, but the risk and potential losses associated with that is also significantly higher.
I think that statement should only really apply for when the costs and risks of both methods to achieve the same outcome are similar.
Yes. That's what I'm saying.
I brought up this point because you said that stealth should decrease kinematic requirements. We both agree that stealth would allow the plane to get closer. However, you're also making the argument that stealth will make it easier to slip away quietly. I'm arguing that a function of getting closer reduces that ability to slip away quietly, which puts pressure on the plane to escape quickly. The scenario of current planes being intercepted before they reach stand off distance was brought up earlier. If interception is possible at further ranges, it's even more possible at closer ranges (even with stealth, because, as I said earlier, the act of launching your ordinance reveals your approach vector, which then allows your adversary to focus their search and interception efforts).
Okay, I think I understand what you're saying now, and I'll rephrase what I meant for greater clarity.
When I say stealth would allow the JH-XX to get closer to the target (aka standoff launch distance) without being detected, that is relative to a non stealthy aircraft.
When I say stealth would allow the JH-XX to have lower kinematic requirements during egress, that is also relative to a non stealthy aircraft doing engress from the same standoff launch distance. In other words, if JH-XX and a non-stealthy aircraft both managed to successfully reach stand off distance undetected and launch their payloads, and then both were detected, JH-XX's stealth would allow it to egress easier with lower kinematic demands compared to a non-stealthy aircraft which would have to rely on kinematic capability more to escape successfully.
Yes! Dashing from pursuing CAPs, but because it's traveled deeper into enemy airspace, it is further from friendly airspace, which increases the importance of its kinematics. Furthermore, given the performance of future planes performing interceptor roles I don't see those kinematic requirements easing (supercruisers). I don't dispute that stand off distance will still give it a head start, but that head start is still smaller than planes who would still have to contend with the threat of interception at greater distances. Hence, again, the greater rather than lesser kinematic requirements.
I'll make another comprehensive statement about why I say stealth means JH-XX would have to rely less on kinematics during egress:
During an
egress of equal distance from opposing pursuing CAP (where the distance between CAP and the launch aircraft, and every other physical relation to each other is also equal), a stealthy aircraft can have lower kinematic requirements to successfully escape the pursuing CAP, while a non-stealthy aircraft has higher kinematic requirements to successfully escape the pursuing CAP.
In other words, when I say that JH-XX can rely on stealth as a factor to reduce its kinematic requirements compared to a non-stealthy platform, it is comparing both under the same starting line of when egress begins.
If I were to describe it as a scenario, it would be to imagine two alternate universes, one where JH-XX manages to get into stand off range of a target undetected, and one where the non-stealthy platform also manages to get into (the same) stand off range of the same target undetected (somehow it manages it despite being non-stealthy), and both successfully launch their payloads at which point both are detected and have CAP vectored onto them (with the same parameters of CAP for both JH-XX and the non-stealthy striker; same number of fighters, same loadout, same distance from each aircraft). Thus, I am saying that JH-XX, by virtue of its stealth, may not need to travel as quickly as the non-stealthy aircraft to successfully evade its pursuers, while the non-stealthy aircraft would need higher brute speed to successfully evade its pursuers due to lacking RF stealth.
Of course, in real life, the non-stealthy aircraft would likely not be able to reach stand-off range successfully even to begin with, but that doesn't mean that the egress scenarios for both non-stealthy and stealthy aircraft should not be the same, given we are trying to assess their requirements for successful egress alone.
Phew, well I don't know about you, but I'm tired. I thought we covered a lot of interesting ground in this discussion. I'm okay with letting this one rest now.
I'd be interested in clarifying the greater vs lesser kinematic requirements thing WRT stealth. I think that was a bit of miscommunication on both our parts.
