Michael
VIP Member
As for what other Chinese people think—I don’t know! Speaking for myself, I can agree with some, but not all, of the points you’ve raised.
In our philosophy of game theory, given a fixed definition, the weaker party can at best reach parity with the stronger party—surpassing them is impossible. The reason is simple: the "definition" itself is determined by the stronger party, who also holds the exclusive right to interpret it. Consequently, the weaker party lacks any capacity to transcend this position. The true crux of the matter lies in who possesses the authority to establish that "definition."
Example:
In the "4G4S" era of air power, China can, at best, stand on equal footing with the United States. This is essentially the limit, as the United States is the very entity that defined the "4G4S" standard. —————— "4G4S": This refers to what are now known as fifth-generation fighter jets, based on the "4S" criteria. The United States initially designated them as "4th-Gen" fighters and established the detailed 4S standards—a framework that China also recognizes. Although they are now referred to as "5th-Gen" fighters, this change in terminology does not alter the fundamental nature of the concept.
But,
what about the future?
China’s J-36 and J-50 are already undergoing intensive flight testing......
As for aircraft carriers, I agree that, by current, generally accepted standards, the United States holds a comprehensive lead over China.
But, certain concepts are quietly undergoing change......
