Evidently the best brains in the United States built a plane around 4-years behind schedule and significantly over budget. I don't deny they're the best brains, but they definitely screwed up, unless you'd like to pin the blame on project management. Churchill's IQ might have been between 150-200, but that doesn't mean I can't criticize the errors of planning that made Gallipoli a disaster, costing the lives of more than 100,000 ANZAC soldiers. Your argument is invalid here.
Let's put it another way. The J-20 and the F-35 are both aircraft, aircraft designed to be capable with advanced subsystems. The F-35, at least right now, has better sub-systems than the J-20. The J-20 will probably have a higher-aperture radar, and possibly more power, but the F-35 has more technological sophistication and maturity. Assume, for the sake of a thought experiment, that Lockheed Martin does something completely irrational and treasonous and transfers the technology behind the subsystems for the F-35 to the Chinese, and that these subsystems are adapted to the extent where they can be put onto the J-20, for essentially identical efficiency. Now, what advantages does the J-20 hold over the F-35? It has better maneuverability, better supercruise (supercruise is not simply a function of engine power, but also of drag), and fuel capacity sufficient to make it outrange the F-35 without tanks. What advantages does the F-35 hold over the J-20? The F-35 is a bit more stealthy, but like the J-20, has weaker rear stealth. This is an impossible scenario, but let's assume the reverse.
The Chinese transfer the plans for the J-20 to Lockheed Martin. How are the aerodynamic and aircraft design on the J-20 supposed to be integrated into the F-35? They can't. The F-35 loses stealth and becomes somewhat heavier with canards; modification of the F-35 to a low-aspect ratio/low-drag form adds tremendous costs and will require heavy re-engineering. Putting these two scenarios together, the F-35 doesn't benefit much at all from the J-20 technology, while the J-20 can incorporate F-35 subsystem technology with almost no loss in effectiveness and sometimes even gains; in the case of the AESA, the larger aperture on the J-20 will result in a more capable AESA than with the F-35.
Now, your counter-argument is that the 8 million LOC on the F-35 subsystems means that the subsystems are difficult to clone and adapt. That's not necessarily true, depending on the quality of coding. Within the computer science field, there's a famous book called "The Mythical Man-Hour", arguing that conventional, or what was conventional for the day, metrics for coding efficiency were not representative of coding efficiency. Even Bill Gates has remarked that the LOC standard used by IBM was obsolete; good code, performant (a neologism used in the IT industry) code, is not necessarily based on length, but terseness, because you want the smallest efficient program possible so that the computer can run it faster, resulting in higher performance.
As to whether or not the code can be easily-cloned, because the F-35's subsystems are done, in the majority, in the off-the-shelf C and C++ languages, not the military-specific ADA, its coding can be easily adapted to Chinese applications simply through cyber-espionage, which we know has already occurred. The Chinese coding community isn't bad, either; while the United States still has a more sophisticated and larger coding community, the Chinese community is probably second in size and perhaps third in sophistication, after the Russian and American communities. Quite possibly, as well, the Chinese coders may be as competent or more competent; the Russians are known for showing off their capabilities and the efficiency of their work, but you'd expect that high-tier Chinese coders, in an authoritarian or totalitarian country, would be sequestered by the state, a state that we know is highl science-oriented and that exceptional coding talent could exist, but be hidden.
ACM results, anyways, actually emphasize Russian coders over American coders. Look here: . The top-performing universities are Russian, then Japanese, then Chinese, with Berkeley showing up only at rank 6, after Tsinghua and Peking universities. With the ability of the Chinese state to conscript efficient coders, as well as the unfortunate inclination of Chinese towards safe government and corporate jobs as opposed to more adventurous and productive entrepreneurial ventures, as in Silicon Valley, we can reasonably assume that the coders working for AVIC are probably a shade or two more competent than the ones working for Lockmart.
As I've said before, the F-35 is a flying brick; an aircraft whose strength lies almost entirely in its subsystems, things that the Chinese can clone, match, or even exceed far more easily than the Americans can adapt J-20 aerodynamics to the F-35. Yet the F-35 does have one significant advantage. With around 3000 units expected to be produced over the next 10 years, the aircraft comprises a cheap and numerous platform, with later models expected to be priced in the upper 8 digits as opposed to the estimated lower 9 digits for the PAK-FA and the J-20. The Chinese carbon fiber industry, as mentioned elsewhere, only has the capacity for 20 J-20s a year at the present rate, anyways; the Chinese will need to tremendously expand and develop their carbon fiber industry to get sufficient production to be viable against the F-35's production levels.
Now, before you get insulted, please do understand that I have said elsewhere that I am, very slightly, a US equipment fanboy. It's not a mistake to do so; many Chinese military enthusiasts and even the PLA have significant appreciation of the US military-industrial complex, given that it has historically been #1 in the world and that it has an unrivaled history of combat performance. Yet here, I would argue that Lockheed Martin screwed up. The F-35 is late, more expensive than originally estimated (60 million was the original price target), and a poor aerodynamic platform competent only because of a technological advantage in its subsystems, one that is threatened by decreasing US defense spending and the rapid advancements in Chinese technology. Its only advantage is the traditional training advantage of USAF pilots, but even there, that's threatened by the fact that due to defense cuts USAF flight hours have gone down, supplemented by cheaper simulators of unknown quality.
Ultimately, while I think the F-35 will essentially be a reprise of the F-104 Starfighter, a flawed aircraft built in large-enough numbers to be effective, the US military industrial complex is still the best in the world. The F-35 may force the US to resort to embarrassing attritional warfare, using quantity to cover for quality, but I have confidence in the B-3, the F/A-X and F/A-XX projects, and whatever UCAVs are built to escort the B-3. It's just that this generation is blown.
Let's put it another way. The J-20 and the F-35 are both aircraft, aircraft designed to be capable with advanced subsystems. The F-35, at least right now, has better sub-systems than the J-20. The J-20 will probably have a higher-aperture radar, and possibly more power, but the F-35 has more technological sophistication and maturity. Assume, for the sake of a thought experiment, that Lockheed Martin does something completely irrational and treasonous and transfers the technology behind the subsystems for the F-35 to the Chinese, and that these subsystems are adapted to the extent where they can be put onto the J-20, for essentially identical efficiency. Now, what advantages does the J-20 hold over the F-35? It has better maneuverability, better supercruise (supercruise is not simply a function of engine power, but also of drag), and fuel capacity sufficient to make it outrange the F-35 without tanks. What advantages does the F-35 hold over the J-20? The F-35 is a bit more stealthy, but like the J-20, has weaker rear stealth. This is an impossible scenario, but let's assume the reverse.
The Chinese transfer the plans for the J-20 to Lockheed Martin. How are the aerodynamic and aircraft design on the J-20 supposed to be integrated into the F-35? They can't. The F-35 loses stealth and becomes somewhat heavier with canards; modification of the F-35 to a low-aspect ratio/low-drag form adds tremendous costs and will require heavy re-engineering. Putting these two scenarios together, the F-35 doesn't benefit much at all from the J-20 technology, while the J-20 can incorporate F-35 subsystem technology with almost no loss in effectiveness and sometimes even gains; in the case of the AESA, the larger aperture on the J-20 will result in a more capable AESA than with the F-35.
Now, your counter-argument is that the 8 million LOC on the F-35 subsystems means that the subsystems are difficult to clone and adapt. That's not necessarily true, depending on the quality of coding. Within the computer science field, there's a famous book called "The Mythical Man-Hour", arguing that conventional, or what was conventional for the day, metrics for coding efficiency were not representative of coding efficiency. Even Bill Gates has remarked that the LOC standard used by IBM was obsolete; good code, performant (a neologism used in the IT industry) code, is not necessarily based on length, but terseness, because you want the smallest efficient program possible so that the computer can run it faster, resulting in higher performance.
As to whether or not the code can be easily-cloned, because the F-35's subsystems are done, in the majority, in the off-the-shelf C and C++ languages, not the military-specific ADA, its coding can be easily adapted to Chinese applications simply through cyber-espionage, which we know has already occurred. The Chinese coding community isn't bad, either; while the United States still has a more sophisticated and larger coding community, the Chinese community is probably second in size and perhaps third in sophistication, after the Russian and American communities. Quite possibly, as well, the Chinese coders may be as competent or more competent; the Russians are known for showing off their capabilities and the efficiency of their work, but you'd expect that high-tier Chinese coders, in an authoritarian or totalitarian country, would be sequestered by the state, a state that we know is highl science-oriented and that exceptional coding talent could exist, but be hidden.
ACM results, anyways, actually emphasize Russian coders over American coders. Look here: . The top-performing universities are Russian, then Japanese, then Chinese, with Berkeley showing up only at rank 6, after Tsinghua and Peking universities. With the ability of the Chinese state to conscript efficient coders, as well as the unfortunate inclination of Chinese towards safe government and corporate jobs as opposed to more adventurous and productive entrepreneurial ventures, as in Silicon Valley, we can reasonably assume that the coders working for AVIC are probably a shade or two more competent than the ones working for Lockmart.
As I've said before, the F-35 is a flying brick; an aircraft whose strength lies almost entirely in its subsystems, things that the Chinese can clone, match, or even exceed far more easily than the Americans can adapt J-20 aerodynamics to the F-35. Yet the F-35 does have one significant advantage. With around 3000 units expected to be produced over the next 10 years, the aircraft comprises a cheap and numerous platform, with later models expected to be priced in the upper 8 digits as opposed to the estimated lower 9 digits for the PAK-FA and the J-20. The Chinese carbon fiber industry, as mentioned elsewhere, only has the capacity for 20 J-20s a year at the present rate, anyways; the Chinese will need to tremendously expand and develop their carbon fiber industry to get sufficient production to be viable against the F-35's production levels.
Now, before you get insulted, please do understand that I have said elsewhere that I am, very slightly, a US equipment fanboy. It's not a mistake to do so; many Chinese military enthusiasts and even the PLA have significant appreciation of the US military-industrial complex, given that it has historically been #1 in the world and that it has an unrivaled history of combat performance. Yet here, I would argue that Lockheed Martin screwed up. The F-35 is late, more expensive than originally estimated (60 million was the original price target), and a poor aerodynamic platform competent only because of a technological advantage in its subsystems, one that is threatened by decreasing US defense spending and the rapid advancements in Chinese technology. Its only advantage is the traditional training advantage of USAF pilots, but even there, that's threatened by the fact that due to defense cuts USAF flight hours have gone down, supplemented by cheaper simulators of unknown quality.
Ultimately, while I think the F-35 will essentially be a reprise of the F-104 Starfighter, a flawed aircraft built in large-enough numbers to be effective, the US military industrial complex is still the best in the world. The F-35 may force the US to resort to embarrassing attritional warfare, using quantity to cover for quality, but I have confidence in the B-3, the F/A-X and F/A-XX projects, and whatever UCAVs are built to escort the B-3. It's just that this generation is blown.
