What is your basis for suggesting that this company makes 'excessive profitability'?
By your logic, it would be simply easier if they just void the patent and have everyone copy them. /s
J-20 5th Gen Fighter Thread VIII
- Thread starter Blitzo
- Start date
What is your basis for suggesting that this company makes 'excessive profitability'?
By your logic, it would be simply easier if they just void the patent and have everyone copy them. /s
The notion of "composite means radar transparent" is assumption without base. The light gray we see is just some top coat. The underneath is coper colored material which does not look like ordinary paint. I once suggested it being film made of metamaterial which we were told that J-20 uses. Unfortunately I don't have any better close up photos to judge (up close one may be able to see the shining patterns). Even if it is just regular composite, it can be inlayed with conductors to reduce radar return. The inlay's pattern would be designed to meet the wave-lengh, essentially being a primitive "metamaterial".
So just the skin is enough to block radar wave, there is no need for internal structure.
The part with the nearly 50% net income margin.
I don't see what your issue is with my very market-oriented solution; you favour markets and I agree in this case. What's wrong with competition?
I haven't suggested administrative measures like voiding patents, that's just a straw man and addressing it would be a waste of time.
You don't know which part of their business contributes their fat profit. The company's open business has nothing to do with PLA. They may provide stealth coating to PLA, but that business is not visible to anybody.
Besides, PLA is the ONLY customer, if PLA says no to a high price, the company's only choice is never get in the business in the first place.
You should be aware that in China, there are certain businesses counted as strategic whose price, cost, where to source supply and whom to sell are dictated by the state REGARDLESS the ownership and investment scheme. A good example is unitility (water and electricity), there is a French company operating unitility service in Lanzhou Gansu, there is no way this company is free to set price which is caped by the government. If such company felt that the price is not profitable, their choice is to divest.
It is very wrong to think in line of western practice (free market) about China's state operation including military. I must say that all the discussion of J-20's cost and price are like chicken talking to duck.
Last edited:
Why not 80% margins? Why not 70%?
You also have no evidence as to how much effort/money/time they spent on the R&D process behind this product, so you've not shown anything to suggest that they do indeed make excessive profit.
If the person/team behind this company is truly responsible for the stealth coating solution, they may very well deserve a lot of money given the strategic importance of the J-20.
Nothing is wrong with the market here - there is nothing that suggests what they make is excessive or not excessive - it just is. And since you've not proven that they are 'making excessive' profit, there is nothing to suggest that there is anything to be done.
It would help your point if you actually found the right company...the company you cropped is 华勤 and the company I am talking about is 华秦.
Do better.
Last edited:
I'll rephrase, what changes have we been able to observe externally that may point to upgrades.
You should have quoted the Chinese name since Pinyin is not adequate in this case.
This 华秦 is a SOE in a coat of commercial company (stock traded in public), it is no different from CAC. If they are making near 50% profit from PLA, one can imagine CAC, AVIC doing that too, even PLAAF can demand doubling of their budget from CMC. Would you believe that? So chance of the fat profit being related to PLA is near zero.
To be specific, according to you "512mln/672mln of revenues in 2021/2022, respectively; And made 233mln/333mln". Their cost is like 52%, is that real cost? It is a matter of accountant. This happens in a commericial company too, where cost can be allocated to one or many departments which makes some department looks total "lose" another 100% profit. Doing this makes calculation easier and won't affect the truth for the company as a whole.
Last edited:
This is an English forum and I gave a specific stock ticker for the company to which I was referring. If you don't know what that means you are more than welcome to ask.
Not according to me, according to the annual report. If you are alleging falsification of financial information, you should refer to the CSRC, not me.
In any case, this company is a potential J-20 supplier that I brought up - I don't believe there is any more utility to further discuss this in a flagship thread here so this will be my last response. DMs open if you want to learn how to use stock tickers in China.
If the state adopts a posture like mine to regulate private companies in the defense sector, then "why 50% and not X" is because the state says so.
Having said that, the state is unlikely to adopt this posture any time soon because private sector participation in the defense sector is miniscule and states - including China, unfortunately - are reactive, they don't get out ahead of problems.
I have crystal clear, 100% reliable evidence of how much they spent: the costs in their income statement.
They're getting to keep a lot of money. I'm not of the opinion that because a capitalist had a good idea once upon a time and successfully implemented it that he should be free to extract rents forever and have the rest of society pay for his and his spawn's yachts until the end of time.
He should count his lucky stars that the state doesn't decide his technology is too important to national defense to leave in his hands and just eminent domain it. Which, again, I'm not suggesting. What I'm saying is AVIC/the government at large should tell other capitalists, "You think you can give us a better deal? Field's wide open."
Markets are there to serve society, not the other way around. The consumer (AVIC) and the Chinese taxpayer behind it should get the best deal possible.
Stay on topic!