It's not just engine deficiencies, that's already baked into the cake. It's the conclusion that the Chinese engine industry is so far behind that it has no hope of having a high thrust VCE throughout the lifetime of the J-XD, which will extend into the 2050s. I don't think you appreciate the magnitude (and therefore the likelihood) of your position. It's not that the industry is behind - we all agree that's the case - it's that it's catastrophically behind.
That flies in the face of our understanding of the Chinese state of the art, the state of supporting industries, what's been revealed at Zhuhai, the rumours we've heard from the likes of Liu Daxiang, etc. The situation was far worse in the J-20 era and it was still designed with the hope that it would one day have its intended engines.
It doesn't necessarily mean that there's no "hope" of having a high thrust VCE through the lifetime of J-XD, only that there's no hope of having a high thrust VCE through the lifetime of J-XD at such a point of its production where it would make sense to produce a major new variant of it -- it might be the early 2040s for all we know, considering there's a real possibility the "6th generation" of fighter aircraft might be somewhat abbreviated and emerge to become a more distributed system of systems approach by when the "7th generation" might start to be conceived.
Also, it may not necessarily reflect poorly on the Chinese aeroengine industry, but might reflect more on the complexities of high thrust VCEs themselves. For all we know, it might end up being that only one or two nations end up capable of producing high thrust VCEs due to a higher barrier of entry.
A three engine design when the US could create a comparable two engine one is essentially giving up hope.
For the production cycle of J-XD, yes.
(All of the above being that I am not convinced J-XD will be three engined to begin with)
If US can show a comparable platform that doesn't need 3 engines.
I mean if you believe US doesn't need to prove itself because China is quote "very much not a global leader", then it should be no trouble for US to make comparable platforms but with better engines, eliminating the need of 3 engines, in the hypothetical scenario this happens. They are after all "significantly ahead".
So we can be in full agreement on that. No one would have argued US wasn't ahead when it inducted F135 on F-35 ahead of China's 2 5th gens. Until then, hold your horses.
You misunderstand.
I'll put it more plainly -- due to China being behind the US in aeroengine technology now and into the foreseeable future, if there is any Chinese project that adopts an engine configuration that is notably different to that of an equivalent US design, then the most reasonable and prudent default answer is that it is due to Chinese aeroengine deficiencies relative to the US, until there is information that makes us think otherwise.
It is not the US that needs the benefit of doubt, it is China.
