I never said they are not effective i know when we write is hard to express ideas, DSI are good intakes, economic with good performance either in aerodynamics or stealth, F-35 has the ideal DSI intake, simple and effective, are they limited? yes to 1.6 Mach that is the ideal speed and pressure recovery, So basically it is cheap and easy to maintain, i only said that any technology has advantages as well as disadvantages, why JF-17 has porous holes for its bleeding system? i find it as a disadvantage, simpler is better on DSI intakes, they are fixed and inferior in subsonic speeds to traditional intakes in performance.
So if F-16 basically flies most of the time bellow Mach 1 then why Lockheed will do what Chengdu did with J-10, start building F-16s with DSI intakes, it makes no sense, J-10B/C unless it flies most of the time at supersonic speeds does not have any advantage in performance over F-16 with its traditional intake with boundary layer diverter.
On F-35 makes sense you need an aircraft with stealth, on J-10B/C is only price since it will not fly most of the time at supersonic speeds.
On J-20 if it has 2 porous holes nets for its bleeding system, it added weight and complexity, so tell me what is better for a supercruising aircraft? variable geometry or Fixed? if i want an aircraft to fly well between Mach 1.6 to Mach 2.4 i prefer a Caret with variable geometry, yes it is more expensive, but it is more effective; if the aircraft will fly below Mach 2 and supercruise at speeds in the region of Mach 1,6, then i will take DSI intakes like J-20
