>>63911395
I mean the chinese FA-XX equivalent, J-50, was already seen flying around. Pre-series model, not prototype.
Which means they're 15 years ahead of the US with that program.
>>63911514
>generally, parity in technology isn't a deal-breaker.
>china is lagging in fleet carriers.

You're implying there will be carrier vs carrier fights.
This is not the case.
Carriers are actually not useful assets to fight other carriers anymore.
The reason is the size and range limitations of carrier based aircraft, and the size and range limitations of munitions they carry, as well as space-based recon.

>it's trying to offset that by ballistic missile(s)

No. Carriers are suitable to project force, but increasingly only against non-peer enemies. A peer enemy can counter carriers with missiles far more effectively than with their own carriers. The soviets did it with huge anti-ship missiles, and the chinese supercharged that with hypersonic ballistic ones.
They do not build carriers to counter US carriers, they build carriers to bully thirdies after they nuke US carriers from their home porch with hypersonics.

>but we just don't know how they will work until it happens.

China knows, they build movable aircraft carrier dummy targets on rail tracks in the desert to test them lmao.

>china's biggest issue is their lack of a large ssn fleet. which is the most potent naval asset.

The US is focussing on SSNs for the same reason nazi germany did: Limited ressources compared to the enemy industrial capacity. Subs are more limited in what they can do, but more efficient to run interference. Just like the nazis focussed on killing allied logistics chains with subs.

You have to give up the idea of american exceptionalism to understand reality.