Re: New Generation Fighter
In case you dont know, the Chinese have also developed the 6th generation fighter for quite long time, and there is zero deny that the tech-gap between China and USA will most likely keep narrowing for the coming years.
Just check the news link I posted weeks ago in this thread, the vice-general manage of China aero-group mentioned about the 6th generation aircraft quite often.
You'd have to know what requirements entail a 6th generation platform first before you can actually develop one. I don't think either the US nor China knows what that is, so I don't think it's accurate to say that either are developing a 6th generation fighter. (Note, I originally asserted they were developing technologies to be used in future platforms, not that they were already developing them). In any case, I don't doubt China is developing technologies for 6th generation platforms. It just seems to be (but without hard evidence I could be wrong) the US has more to show for it and is probably further along, particularly since they've fleshed out 5th generation technologies for a good two+ decades.
The main reason that the american can develop something much earlier than the Chinese side is because at that China have not invested that much, so using "years" to measure tech-gap or even to predict how long the catch-up can take is highly un-scientific.
For instance: if Team #1 have done project A and Team #2 lack the money and have not done project A, we can claim Team #1 leads Team #2 in the area of project A by infinite long time, but this doesnt mean once the investment is in place, it will take Team #2 infinite long time to accomplish their project A.
I'm not saying the gap will stay 30 years forever, just that as of now I'm of the personal mind that it's 30 years. In any case, if you're going to argue China's lack of funds held it back, it still doesn't mean China's not X number of years behind. Part of acquiring technology is the ability to pay for it, so lack of funds is entirely a within system reason that China is 30 years behind. You can't have technological capabilities if you can't pay for them. If China were a wealthy country, it could buy much better scientists or technology and develop them faster, so lack of funds is within the causal mechanism that results in pace of technological development.
In any case, saying that at time A country X has technology country Y had at time B is a perfectly valid measure (note I never asserted what we were measuring for). As Blitzio has pointed out, and I am in perfect agreement, this entire "how many years behind country A" is a vague point at best that can be spun in many ways. To continue this discussion would go besides the point. I was merely pointing out that saying China is 30 years behind the US is not entirely invalid, that under certain metrics and standards it's an entirely true statement.
As for your comparison of the F-16 vs. the J-10, since the J-10 was fielded in 03, that's only 25 years from 78. I don't think it's outrageous to think that the J-10 is closer to the C/D variant than the A/B variant, and the former was fielded in 84, so that's only about a 20 year gap.
Comparing the J-10 to the original F-16A isn't completely even - I think most people consider J-10 to be equivalent to the F-16C, and that was first fielded in 1984. J-10 was first fielded in 2005; so that's a 21 year gap. If we go by the PLAAF general's statement that J-XX will be fielded in 2017-2019 (let's use 2018 as an average shall we?), and we note the F-22 was first fielded in 2005... that's a 13 year gap. The latter part is speculative of course, but if development goes as the PLAAF general claimed then the gap would've shrunk by a noticeable amount.
You both make highly valid points, but it goes back to the point earlier about how advancement of components is not the same as the advanced integration of parts. I suppose it hurts the discussion when we discuss things in general as the progress of components does not always follow the same curve as the development of the whole. However, I think it's safe to say that in a multi-component product, the rate of progress can only match that of the most lagging component, which in China's case would be the engine, airframe, and design aspects of a modern fighter. I think that's what I meant when I compared the J-10s progress to that of the F-16. Obviously the J-10 benefits from being the lagger, but I think in broad strokes, if we talk about engine and airframe, the implementation of the J-10 design is 30 years behind. We can however say that because of the component parts developed at different times the J-10 as a platform overall might
mature faster than the F-16. In any case, I don't think there's a right and wrong to this particular point. It's primarily how you frame things and the metrics you use to gauge how many years country X is behind country Y, which as mentioned earlier, makes the discussion vague and spin-worthy.
I think what the general meant when he said "fielded" was when the J-XX would have first flight. In that sense the F-22 first flew around 1990. If the J-xx flies anywhere from 2015-20, that's a good 25-30 years after the F-22 went into first flight. Undoubtedly the gap will narrow, particularly as the F-22 and F-35's turnover rates will likely be slower than the J-XXs, but I don't see that gap narrowing as quickly as some might be indicating.
