J-20 5th Gen Fighter Thread VI

[manqiangrexue]

Whether it's the LRIP or target price is another question altogether, and it's one we debate on.

If you don't assume that things are what they obviously are, that price during LRIP is LRIP price, then there's all sorts of nonsense debates we can be having. Maybe it's cost w/o engines. Maybe it's prototype cost. Maybe it's program cost. Maybe it's cost per batch. Maybe lifetime cost including all maintenance and operations. Didn't specify which one, did it?

The question is whether the $110 mn price is reasonable within the context of general price speculation,

It doesn't matter if it's reasonable to you; it matters if your source is reliable and says what you think it says. By now, I'm convinced that this is probably a concept you won't understand for the rest of your life.

 

[Inst]

I'm not responding to this conversation further, as per moderator instructions. So, let's put up a "PLAAF flyaway costs" thread?

 

[manqiangrexue]

I'm not responding to this conversation further, as per moderator instructions. So, let's put up a "PLAAF flyaway costs" thread?

That would be pointless. I'm talking about the fundamental need for reliable evidence and the correct interpretation of such. I'm not arguing anything about what the price of a machine should be so basically, I've not violated any moderation. I've nothing further to say that I haven't already stated. If you feel so inclined to continue guessing away and reasoning what the cost "should" be, you can do so with yourself on that thread. Personally, I think if such a thread were created, it should also be dedicated to the evidenced-based collection of information regarding costs for PLAAF aircraft rather than as a playground for your "guess at anything we don't know" game. Basically, what you're doing now is no more appropriate there than it would be here. The only way this discussion might proceed in a semi-meaningful way is if the original evidence can be brought back up for its reliability to be investigated and its precise Chinese diction to be examined. Short of that, we're not going to make any progress. I'm going to continue saying, "We need to consider the reliability of the source and what the Chinese wording actually means," and you're going to keep saying, "But the number sounds so plausible to be the final long-term flyaway costs by my calculations/reasoning so let's just say it's true!"

 

[Inst]

I've set up a thread for this, and if you want to keep on arguing because you're passionate that the J-20 isn't 110mn (surprise, it turns out it's 400 million USD a piece), be my guest. Otherwise, please be kind enough to take this conversation out of this thread as per moderator request and instructions.

 

[nugroho]

As for J-10CE, the rumored, and I emphasize rumored, export cost is 40mn, presumably not including spares, support, and maintenance. The planned JF-17 Block III cost is 32 million. The comparable Western system is the F-16V, which has a flyaway cost of about 60-70mn. We will have to wait until the J-10CE is exported to have an affirmative notion of its production cost.

==

Put another way, AFB doesn't believe that the J-20 can 2:1 F-35s. My point isn't whether the J-20 can or cannot, because it depends not only on airframes, but on supporting elements (EODAS B-21 / H-20 support and counterstealth AEW&C) and subsystems (interception XVRAAMs like the PL-21 / PL-15 and AIM-260, laser point defense on future F-35s, micromissiles and active chaff on the F-35), but whether the J-20 NEEDS to do so.

What people arguing for lower prices (China's cheap, labor is cheap [but getting more expensive!]) basically want to say is that the J-20 shouldn't need to 2:1 F-35s. Which gives you a huge problem, because China is going to be facing 1200 F-35s (60% tilt of total production into East Asia theater), implying that China has to build 1200 J-20s to counter.

Moreover, on a symbolic level, managing to 1:1 or resorting to 1:1-ing a lightweight-equivalent / middleweight fighter just says your technology is garbage. It's as if you couldn't take out T-34s on a 1:1 ratio except with Tigers.

We're no longer in a People's War era wherein China is committing to taking 10:1 casualty ratios to deter an enemy, the overall game is a technological race. Getting 2:1 with heavyweight vs lightweight is the ideal circumstance, and getting 4:1 or 8:1 by having a generational advantage is also the ideal circumstance.

Facing 1200 or more F 35 does not mean we must build 1200 J 20, what we must do are building a lot of high sophisticated radar that can detect the unstealth portion of F 35, and Highly precision and accuracy SAMs and many more. I don't say building J 20 is not important but no need to reach F35 amount.

 

[manqiangrexue]

I've set up a thread for this, and if you want to keep on arguing because you're passionate that the J-20 isn't 110mn (surprise, it turns out it's 400 million USD a piece), be my guest. Otherwise, please be kind enough to take this conversation out of this thread as per moderator request and instructions.

No thanks. It's obvious by each of your replies that your reading comprehension, above all else, isn't good enough to debate with me.

 

[Deino]

Guys ... final warning: either you stop this off topic stuff in the new thread or I'll clean here.

Anny additional personnel posts are off.

 

[Equation]

Guys ... final warning: either you stop this off topic stuff in the new thread or I'll clean here.

Anny additional personnel posts are off.

INST. is the one instigating this issue insisting on the thread to accept ONLY his narrative. I'm just saying.

 

[ougoah]

There is no discussion here. It's one man forcing his dogma on other's and failing.

 

[Gatekeeper]

This should bring back some laughter back after recent days. According to news.18, this is jf17. Journalism is not what it use to be. Lol

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!