As mentioned in comments, this is hard to estimate offhand, as it could depend on things like nationality, field of study, age, degree of "success", and so on. I suppose that's why a question is justified.
I'm less familiar with other indices, so I'll focus on the h-index.
h-index compared to age?
Nevertheless, some have considered this. Here's a quick post by Colin Mathers: H-index and age: a new criterion for success?. Among some commentary, Mathers suggests that having a h-index greater than one's age is a good sign.
Also in that post:
JE Hirsch, the author of the h index estimated that after 20 years a
“successful scientist” will have an h-index of 20, an “outstanding
scientist” an h-index of 40, and a “truly unique” individual an
h-index of 60.
The h-index does not provide a significantly more accurate measure of
impact than the total number of citations for a given scholar. In
particular, by modeling the distribution of citations among papers as
a random integer partition and the h-index as the Durfee square of the
partition, Yong arrived at the formula h ~ 0.54*sqrt(N), where N is the total number of citations, which, for mathematics members of the National Academy
of Sciences, turns out to provide an accurate (with errors typically
within 10–20 percent) approximation of h-index in most cases.
Source: Alexander Yong, Critique of Hirsch’s Citation Index: A
Combinatorial Fermi Problem, Notices of the American Mathematical
Society, vol. 61 (2014), no. 11, pp. 1040–50.
We can then estimate N as a function of time. Assuming academics begin publishing at age 25 yrs and publish an average of two papers per year and two conference proceedings (see also) -- which is clearly a very rough estimate -- P ~ 4*(A-25 yrs), where P is the number of papers published and A is the academic's age in years and must be greater than 25 yrs. One could apply some weighting function to estimate citations per year per paper and integrate, but for the sake of a crude estimate, we could assume the average paper garners roughly 10 citations/year (source). The number of citations per year for just Career Year t (where t~A-25 yrs) is then 10 * P(t) == 40*t. The cumulative number of citations N(t) is then the integral of that over the person's career up to year t: 20 * t^2. Finally, we plug this into the formula above (h ~ 0.54 * sqrt(N(t)) and get 0.54*sqrt(20)*sqrt(t^2) ==> h ~ 2.4 * t.
After Hirsch's 20 years, this gives an estimate of a h-score of 48.
Again, this is an incredibly crude estimate. It likely overestimates the h-index for older researchers because most papers receive attention in the first decade or so after publication, but the average number of citations per year per paper would likely decay off in subsequent decades after publication. It also assumes that the researcher is continually publishing.