For every air force, there are requirements on certain designs. Considering PLAAF's opposition as F-22/35, what makes you think PLAAF will lower it's requirement to the next generation Gripen?
There are reasons why China is not interested in su-35 (or the Eurocanards when they were possibilities in 2005). These platforms simply are not that helpful against 5th gen US fighters.
have you seen the UAV that CAC is developing? Have you seen the UCAV models they have shown? They are all clearly developed to be LO platforms.
Again there are limitations to what you can achieve with your first operational LO platform, no matter how clever you are. It has taken 30 years for the US to produce a VLO/LO fighter that outperforms its predecessors in terms of kinematics and aerodynamics, doesn't have a maintenance footprint as large as the kitty hawk, doesn't need RAM reapplied after every sortie and doesn't cost the earth (i.e. a 5th gen platform).
Achieving the balance between RCS reduction, reliability/maintainability and cost is
EXTREMELY DIFFICULT. In addition to the shaping the materials technology required to achieve comparable maintenance requirements to legacy platforms while providing the F-22 with an RCS smaller than the previous gen stealth technology are truly state of the art. That's why it has taken so much investment and so much time for the US to effectively achieve that balance. You think that just because CAC has rolled out a 1st gen LO technology demonstrator or two that it is anywhere near achieving something like the F-22 or F-35 in the short to mid term? I wouldn't hold my breath. There is a light year of difference between technology demonstration/proof-of-concept/lab work and operational experience. So unless the PLAAF wants their new fighter post 2020 i doubt they will get true 5th gen LO performance, as RCS performance will be the first thing to go when CAC doesn't have the materials technology required.
your analysis of J-10 is deeply flawed,
I don't see how his analysis of the J-10 is deeply flawed. Classifying the J-10 as an early 4th gen platform is spot on the mark as far as I'm concerned. The J-10 seems to be a relatively advanced 4th gen airframe, providing good supersonic and subsonic maneuver characteristics and energy management (typical of a delta-canard), however as a platform it distinctly lacks behind the benchmark 4.5th gen fighters. What platforms like the F/A-18F BII and Typhoon provide that puts them in front of the 4th gen pack is a emphasis on information dominance and information management technologies and techniques, which reach a contemporary apex in 5th gen platforms. This goes far beyond glassing the cockpit. The introduction of ESM systems as capable as DASS and AN/ALR 63 (v)3, world leading HUI (more advanced than 5th gen competitors) and extremely capable LPI radars such as the AN/APG-79 (although not capable as the AN/APG-79, notably in terms of LPI performance, but Captor is still a world leading radar), all has a massive effect on SA.
Additionally its not just the quality of the sensors that sets the above platforms apart, its the way the avionics suits collate and fuse the information and work with the HUI to present usable information (rather than data) about the battle-space. Its the ability of these platforms to improve tactical decision making that sets them apart from other 4th gen platforms, and raw performance or airframe design has little to do with it.
I don't see any systems of that caliber anywhere near J-10, and at this point in time PROC has yet to demonstrate the capability to produce previous gen equivalent systems (only just in terms of MSA radar tech). Of course you could stick to the "we haven't seen what they've produced yet so maybe they have an AN/APG-79 in the bag", but personally I'm not into acts of faith. Thus the J-10 as a platform is IMO comparable to an F-16C, with possibly some advantages in raw performance. A long, long, long, way behind a Typhoon or Super bug.
