Can we stop this Bangladesh-related discussion here and continue it in the correct thread?
J-10 Thread IV
- Thread starter Jeff Head
- Start date
Can we stop this Bangladesh-related discussion here and continue it in the correct thread?
Yes, that last post covered pretty much every angle of a potential J-10 Purchase from Bangladesh from my pov, any further discussion on the matter will be done in an appropriate thread.
And it would be bad strategy to shut down production of such a cheap and reliable figher when things could go tits up in the next four years.
I can sympathize with that sentiment, but the J-10C's utility is fundamentally limited by its range. Within the areas that it can cover, the PLAAF should already have enough mass that further airframes would have little if any meaningful benefit. OTOH I think further ramping up J-16 production is useful & should be pursued.
I agree, and for the same exact reason. Even low-rate production is better than shutting the entire production line down. It would also be unconscionable IMO if this line is shut down while there are still any 3rd generation fighters in PLAAF service.
Pakistan Air Force will keep the production line running until they hit 70 aircraft.
In no scenario are any lines being shut down. Even if CAC divested entirely of the J-10, it would use the freed capacity to produce more J-20s.
Then it becomes a question of cost as well as availability of (e.g.) WS-15s and other fancy electronics on the J-20. The whole point is that the J-10 is a relatively cheap mass-producible fighter that would be of immense value in a war of attrition with the US, a war which would more and more heavily favor China as the war drags on, but only if China can reliably outproduce the US. I suspect there could be plenty of limitations on CAC's ability to uptick J-20 production during wartime, but far less barriers for the J-10. At a time when you would want to get as many aircraft into the fight as fast as possible over and over, the J-10 is a far more expedient choice than the J-20, at least as far as this particular production line is concerned.
Per unit cost is too narrow a way to look at it. The better way to look at it is capability per unit cost. The J-20 is far more capable and survivable compared to the J-10, so even if one is lost it will have done far more damage than the number of J-10s you could have gotten for the price (which I very much doubt is more than 2).
I also want to comment on your assumption that China wants to attrite the US at cost and sacrifice to itself through "meat waves in the air." This isn't China's strategy at all. The point of China's military modernization is to achieve technological and numerical superiority over the US in the western Pacific, ultimately to such a degree that the US has no hope whatsoever in prevailing in any war under any circumstance.
Of course, the J-20 is the asset to acquire for this strategy, not the J-10.
It's not just per unit cost, of course. It's also a matter of how many can you build over what time with what available resources, which would not be limited to just money.
By China's own admission and timeline, this modernization will not be achieved until 2035. And while the Chinese military is on the path to that, a war may start in the next few years, a point which was actually part of the original discussion: "And it would be bad strategy to shut down production of such a cheap and reliable figher when things could go tits up in the next four years".
While I don't disagree that the end goal of China's military modernization is victory through technology, strength of numbers will not ever disappear from such a calculus, including during a war when supplies dwindle and ease of manufacturing becomes more and more relevant. Nobody is trying to insinuate the human meat waves of the Korean War here, but that doesn't mean it won't be a numbers game, regardless of the technological balance on either side.