What a strange stance ... I would rather like to see "any data that supports his claim" of merely $4.4B!
As such ...
And this claim is based on what or which source?
Last edited:
J-35 carrier fighter (PLAN) thread
- Thread starter Deino
- Start date
What a strange stance ... I would rather like to see "any data that supports his claim" of merely $4.4B!
As such ...
And this claim is based on what or which source?
please …yes, since the SCMP also claimed the Ws-15 is in service since years, that there are already 150 J-20s in service and that the PLAAF will re-equip all its J-20s with TVC engines this year.
The original question was why China hadn't already developed a naval 5th fighter.
If the development cost of the J-20 is actually even higher than $4.4 Billion, then that reinforces how there is no point in developing a new 5th gen naval fighter unless you can justify enough planes to be built. And the number of planes is directly related to the number of catapult equipped carriers in service - which is currently at zero.
I don't know 150 but 100 is very much possible and my guess is we are in triple digits with J-20 numbers.
4.4 is not that crazy either. f-22 R&D cost around 30 billion if I remember correctly. If one considers purchasing power that is an instant 2X for 4.4 billion figure. Also the profit concerns is much lower for Chinese military equipment manufacturers especially at R&D stage since many of them are government research institutes anyway. Then you can say that some common components that is shared with other planes such as those in J-16 so R&D figure might be shared/ or excluded... .. 4.4 can indeed be the figure.
Come on ... she claimed that BS already more than 6 months ago and even more with a wrong explanation. So, only since we now have indeed around 100 and that's closer to 150 makes it not more likely. And all the other BS the SCMP was claiming even more fits to the fact that they have no idea ... so why should this 4.4 Billion $ be correct?
I know that this is getting off-topic, but please remember that the majority of information that we have about Chinese military research and procurement is almost always of the beautified, highly edited and pacified kind. You know, the one a priori curated by the government itself, the source.
This is the name of the game of course *(there are no other avenues of information to base a discussion on, and when they are...the government promptly shuts them down for obvious reasons), but sometimes it feels like we forget it, especially when trying to compare data from different countries. Countries that don't have this filter baked in, or where the filter itself is prone to scrutiny - for various reasons.
The propaganda view always trumps true vision. Especially when common sense dictates otherwise.
This is the name of the game of course *(there are no other avenues of information to base a discussion on, and when they are...the government promptly shuts them down for obvious reasons), but sometimes it feels like we forget it, especially when trying to compare data from different countries. Countries that don't have this filter baked in, or where the filter itself is prone to scrutiny - for various reasons.
The propaganda view always trumps true vision. Especially when common sense dictates otherwise.
Last edited: