From Newsgroup: alt.philosophy.taoism


According to a December 24 report in the *U.S. National Security Journal*, American military commentator Jake Barkby has penned an article that borders on the fanciful. In comparing Chinese and U.S. aircraft carriers, Barkby repeatedly fixates on ChinarCOs J-35 fighter,
arguing that the jet is rCLtoo advancedrCY and too difficult to integrate, and thus cannot deliver immediate combat power.
He then launches into a lengthy discourse on AmericarCOs decades of carrier-operating experience, insisting this remains a major U.S. advantagerCoan attempt to offset strategic panic over ChinarCOs sudden burst of high-tech hardware with what can only be called rCLexperience determinism.rCY
Yet, they cannot explain how a country long dismissed as a mere latecomer could, almost overnight, field a carrier-borne fighter superior to the F-35C. Unable to reconcile this reality, they seek psychological balance by forcibly reinterpreting ChinarCOs technological edge as rCLgrowing pains.rCY
The logic is absurd: being advanced is never a burdenrCobackwardness is. At its core, the American media narrative reflects a profound disorientation in the face of the PLA NavyrCOs leap-frog development.
U.S. analysts are accustomed to linear thinking: they believe carrier aviation must pass through decades of steam-catapult trial and error before reaching electromagnetic launch, and that stealth fighters must accumulate decades of ship-borne experience. China has shattered that linear path.
A speed that violates Western common sense frightens them, spawning this twisted logic:
rCLBecause yourCOre running too fast, yourCOre bound to fall.rCY
This self-hypnotic prose is obviously not written for Chinese readers, but for American taxpayers and members of CongressrCoto cover up the U.S. militaryrCOs dwindling confidence in the Western Pacific.
The article repeatedly stresses AmericarCOs decades of carrier experience, treating that history as a universal talisman, as if experience alone allows outdated hardware to defeat advanced systems.
But most of that rCLexperiencerCY is rooted in the steam-catapult erarComuch of which has become a strategic liability in the age of electromagnetic launch and stealth air combat.
And speaking of experience, China has already launched fifth-generation fighters from an electromagnetic catapultrCothe first nation to do so. Where is the U.S. experience in this domain?
The U.S. Ford-class carriers also use electromagnetic launch, but they chose the wrong technical route: medium-voltage AC. This has resulted in terrible system stability and high failure rates, preventing high-intensity combat deployment to this day.
China chose medium-voltage DC from the start, solving energy storage and instantaneous release stability in one step; its launch efficiency is staggering, far beyond Nimitz-class steam catapults, and leaving the still-patching Ford-class in the dust.
For the U.S. military to cling to a pile of outdated, failure-prone experience to lecture China on how to operate the worldrCOs most advanced DC electromagnetic launch systemrCothat is pure arrogance.
Experience matters, but the laws of physics matter more. When a generational technology gap appears, old-era experience is often crushed by new-era generational superiority.
Nokia had far more phone-making experience than Apple, yet it could not stop itself from being eliminated by the smartphone era. Suggestions that China needs a long learning curve underestimate ChinarCOs agency and its capacity to execute national will.
Westerners are used to low efficiency and delays caused by political squabbling; they cannot comprehend what "Chinese speed" truly means. When U.S. media suggest integrating the J-35 with an EMALS carrier will take 10 years, they are simply extrapolating from their own institutional inefficiency.
In China, that integration cycle will be drastically compressed. China possesses the worldrCOs largest pool of STEM talent and the most complete simulation-training ecosystem. Chinese pilots have already conducted thousands of launch-and-recovery sorties on land-based mock-ups and
high-fidelity digital-twin systems before ever setting foot on a deck.
The pace of the *Fujian*rCOs sea trialsrCoboth in speed and scoperCohas already dropped the jaws of Western observers. Behind that progress are countless researchers and test pilots racing against the clock.
Turning sea trials into combat power may take the U.S. a long shakedown period, not least because their shipyards canrCOt even repair existing hulls and their logistics chain is riddled with holes. For China, it is a super-highway: we build fast and we learn fast.
The J-35rCOs entry into service is not an isolated event; it is backed by an entire high-efficiency national machine. From the KJ-600rCOs coordination to the Attack-11 loyal-wingman drone, the PLA Navy is building a completely new doctrine of operationsrConot copied from the U.S.,
but indigenously created based on ChinarCOs own equipment characteristics. Since it is indigenous, there is no so-called rCLcatch-uprCY; China is on a track it defines itself, where it is both the competitor and the rule-maker.
The new reality is this: no matter how hard Western media hammer their keyboards, they cannot stop the PLA Navy from marching toward the vast blue expanse of the open ocean.
The more they insist the J-35 is a burden, and the more they trumpet their obsolete experience, the more they expose their inner weakness. The acid comments of U.S. media are nothing more than the barking of dogs that accompanies the rise of a great power.
Let them continue to indulge in the dream that American experience is unrivaled in the world; for us, that is a good thing. When they finally wake up, they will find that the tides of the Pacific have already shifted.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2