That's probably ratio between third and fourth generation plane. I suspect it won't so between two stealth fighters even if one is of lesser ability
J31 program is military version of Huawei, most griping in US minds.
- Thread starter tidalwave
- Start date
- Status
State of art engine give more thrust, and lesser one will double up the engine to get the thrust.
If better one has thrust of 10, the lesser one has 6, two of lesser one will give you 12.
Fundamental business principle applies to any business. From high tech to hotdog stand business.
Product Cost based on overhead capital and labor cost.
You said labor cost not important in this case , I doubt that, i t goes against common sense.
Plus overhead R&D equipment cost, how do you know if China not using its own equipments which is cheaper than Western ones.
I am sure you have alot of stats and reasonings but it has pass through common sense check
Brumby
Major
The conversion isn't about description of engine performance. It is about technological 'know how" limit from which China can adopt technology by just stealing or copying. The engine conversation is an example of the limitation.
It is a valid argument except even with a 3:1 kill ratio, the maths of a cost exchange will still be favourable to the US. The F-35 program had been criticised as a compromised design because of the need to fulfil the requirement of the three services. There is a major financial benefit from this default position which is not well appreciated. It allows the program to achieve an economic scale of efficiency that the J-31 will never be able to match. The program will more than likely to hit the $80 million a copy target by Lot 14. This type of pricing is unmatched even by 4th generation western standard if you consider the capabilities that come with it. The idea of the J-31 as an economic threat is simply fantasy when matched against this type of pricing and capabilities.
You are making a shallow argument. Of course all businesses have labor cost as a nominal argument except it stops at kinder garden level. Every industry has strategic drivers that have consequences on its cost structure. I had already laid out the business case for the semiconductor industry and that it is intensively demanding on R & D and capex. Consequently the fall out is that engineering cost has a more limited impact on overall cost. The argument being the potential cost advantage that China can mobilise from engineering salaries is rather limited.
It should also be noted that the existing global supply chain is structured in a manner to extract maximum value or cost reduction through competitive positioning of resources. As an illustration, the majority of design work, performed by computer engineers, now occurs in the United States. The designs are then placed on a wafer of silicon or other material in a sequence of more than 250 photographic and chemical processing steps using equipment produced by firms such as Applied Materials, ASML Holdings, and Lam Research. This front-end fabrication process typically takes about 2 months.29 Around 87% of advanced worldwide fab capacity is now located outside the United States (see Table 2). Back-end production is where chips are assembled into finished semiconductor components and tested for defects. This stage of the manufacturing process is the most labor-intensive and is often performed in countries such as China and Malaysia, where labor costs are lower than in the United States, Japan, and Europe. The final stage of manufacturing involves the installation of the chips into consumer goods. .
Semiconductor manufacturing equipment (SME)—the machines used to build semiconductors—are among the most technologically advanced industrial equipment in use and are closely related to advances made in physics as it involves operations at the molecular and atomic levels. Companies in Japan, Germany, the Netherlands, and the United States are the principle SME producers. China is dependent on foreign suppliers for manufacturing and testing equipment, something that is unlikely to change for years if it is prevented from buying a foreign producer outright. (source : Page 16 China’s Pursuit of Semiconductor Independence_CSIS)
The question equally applies to yours except yours are mainly claims based on generalised view of the world.
Still a capital cost, one time deal.
Btw. Check out naura.com in China , they made those equipments.
China is not as incapable of making advanced semiconductor manufacturing as you write here.
Your argument about salary cost factor is not significant for cost of product is totally mind boggling to say the least, more like pushing some kind of agenda, kind of like you like to dismiss this thread even thought you havent read article.
I will leave at that if that's what you want to do. I don't like agendas, debates would be useless, finding things and twisted them around. It's like you trying to tell me 1+1=3, I cant follow your logic. So I won't keep on debate you on this. Things got twisted.
Btw, did you check out naura.com for their Semiconductor equipment products?? I don't know why you keep on insisting ONLY US or western quipments when I know alot of naura equipments being installed in Chinese fab plants.
Last edited:
TerraN_EmpirE
Tyrant King
I am going to come back to this.
I find it funny that your previous post started by chiding another member with:
Because that was being very lazy.
Than FC31 already fails. The Russian engines mean Russian partnership.
this is highly accurate there are a huge some of ifs and assumptions made to get FC31 from the one off prototype to production and export from engines to systems engineering. These are at the same level as those Early early early J20 or X35. It’s possible the whole thing could fall apart like a house of cards.
then it already failed.
The insides of early early block at best but it’s like building an IPhone based on the technical drawings. You might be able to do it but without the software it’s a very expensive paperweight.
The Chinese would need to do there own work to fill FC31 with actual working systems. FC31 Doesn’t have those.
even if true you need to know how to make them and apply them. It’s not as simple as painting your house. Even if they have the basics of what is used they don’t have the exact mix. This isn’t the 1950s here you can’t just copy a shape or mix a material without methods of making it. How much of F35’s secrets were compromised is unknown.
This is one of the biggest points here. F135 is a beast. It rivals twin engine sets in power. And it’s one of dozens of parts that don’t seem to have a true equivalent on FC31 as we see it.
I also find that is mirrors Mig29 in that where Mig29 vs F16 goes. F16 appears as a single engine “Low fighter” doing the more day to day jobs of lobbing Bombs where the Russian response is Mig29 a twin engine medium fighter.
That is one of the biggest issues that limits exports even if the Chinese offered it with their own engines they need to keep up with demand.
Bogus. This again assumes that the degree of theft is enough to build F35 clones in every way. It’s not just the shapes and materials it’s active stealth as well.
And more than that the defensive suite which continues to evolve. Any degree of comprise is only so good to a point. The downside of the way the F35 has been managed is the price point. The upside is as new tech comes on line it’s added and expanded into the fighter blocks. It’s like how Car companies work as opposed to the traditional aviation model. These features are then retroactively fitted to older models where easily possible with major upgrades planed where not. Based on what we know of the compromise those would have been files on early LIRP fighters that are considered controversial today.
- Status