The main problem of Chinese weapons is that they all are not war proven.
war proven is a nonsense take.
No, it is not nonsense.
The all mechanical linkages flight control system is proven going back to WW I.
The hydraulic assisted flight control system is proven going back to WW II.
The computer assisted flight control system is proven going back to the Korean War.
The all computerized flight control system is proven going back to the Vietnam War.
If I replicate the Wright Flyer (1903), I can claim that my version is flight proven despite the century passed.
Do you see the point here?
It does not mean that if I use the combat proven quad redundant computerized FLCS established by the F-16, then all my fighters are 'combat proven'. In the overall schema, the final combat system, rifle or tank or ship or airplane, is judged by what rigors has it been thru. The quad redundant computerized FLCS is combat proven, but has the rest of the avionics package that includes sensors, nav, and comm? The issue is that no airplane design is COTS. Each design or platform or whatever word used is uniquely tuned to specs despite the fact that all airplanes operates in the same environment -- atmosphere. If I design an airplane that uses the quad redundant computerized FLCS and nothing else, then I can legitimately claim that my airplane is flight proven. But if my airplane is
SUPPOSED to do more than just carry the pilot from A to B, then I cannot rest my airplane on just the FLCS because I am selling my airplane on
ALL the features that are
SUPPOSED to mesh and function as a single entity.
This is why with the F-15EX, while not yet been in combat, the US can legitimately claimed that the EX rests on a combat proven platform to the level that doubts of what it can do is usually secondary concern. Simply put, too many of its subsystems have been tested to failure, and the rigors of combat is that final stress point.
