I am basically going by your comments. For example, this is what you said :
There could be a number of reasons for non engagement in ToT's, for examples :
(i) Reluctance by Russia subsequent to the Flanker debacle;
(ii) Alternate avenue like through Cyber theft; and or
(iii) Different development paths and emphasis
At best It could be argued that the Chinese had attained a sufficiency level that is not dependent on Tot. It is an overstretch to say they are ahead because of lack of demand on Tot. Such a position requires burden of proof and not brute reasoning.
Sorry, it appears that in that specific post I had forgotten to write an additional major premise in the point: instead of only saying "However it is not a point of conjecture that it has been a long time since China has required ToT of Russian avionics or other similar systems."
... I was meaning to also add "However it is not a point of conjecture that it has been a long time since China has required ToT of Russian avionics or other similar systems,
nor is it a point of conjecture that China has developed a range of indigenous avionics and sensor products of seemingly high complexity, and China's advancement in the manufacturing electronic components relevant in many sensors and avionics such as semiconductors"
In terms of indigenous systems, I was referring to the vast quantity of indigenous products they have developed which range from AEW&C to EW aircraft, to APARs and other subsystems such as for ships etc. Lack of ToT is only one of the more minor premises for my position, the bigger premise is more about the variety of new assets that have been produced.
As for manufacturing, like Zool said, indicators such as the rise of China's semiconductor producing industry (which is well documented), and also certain institutes which may have pretty detailed information on a variety of relevant products (like I posted in the radar thread a few days back), as well as occasional academic studies on these matters which might pop up now and then (and one can even search them via open sources if one is interested).
Of course, it is also possible that one can say that we cannot prove the development of those new AEW&C and radars and EW planes are "fully indigenous" or that we do not really know "how capable" they really are -- which are all of course valid arguments to make.
One can also make the case that being able to produce MMICs or other electrical components may not mean it has direct bearing on military applications, and also that the few studies we have seen may not actually directly translate into actual true capability.
That is all true, and they are all arguments which I myself have considered as well... however I do think all the above mentioned indicators are enough to suggest that "the narrative" has arisen
due to those datapoints rather than vice versa, even if the datapoints themselves are not absolutely indisputable and irrefutable evidence which prove the narrative.
