antiterror13
Brigadier
Could you give some reasonings or logics of why you think the cost of DF-17 is ~$2 Million ?
PLA Anti-Air Missile (SAM) systems
- Thread starter FORBIN
- Start date
Could you give some reasonings or logics of why you think the cost of DF-17 is ~$2 Million ?
One important part of warfare. Just the threat of something is enough to fundamentally alter an enemy's behavior. They don't have to be used, or be effective for them to change the battlefield. Nukes are a good example of this. Every long range anti-air option that China adds to her arsenal pushes back American tanker fleets and AWACS planes back and adds as a deterrence.
Some reasonings below on a DF-17 costing $2 Million
www.sinodefenceforum.com/t/lessons-for-china-to-learn-from-ukraine-conflict-for-taiwan-scenario.8923/post-929821
www.sinodefenceforum.com/t/lessons-for-china-to-learn-from-ukraine-conflict-for-taiwan-scenario.8923/post-924598
---
www.sinodefenceforum.com/t/pla-strategy-in-a-taiwan-contingency.5565/post-935998
Take these low-cost SCUD type missiles from China and South Korea.
Then add in a DF-17 glide vehicle body which presumably has very few moving parts and is mostly solid metal alloys.
Then add a HE warhead and a guidance system, and $2 Million for a DF-17 seems reasonable.
CSBA is talking about the ratio as an average not about individual procurement.
I don't know if there might be any violations of treaties, but a nuclear airburst hypersonic SAM seems like a good idea, the maneuverability doesn't have to be impeccable and it could be useful for high value targets, there would essentially be almost no chance to outmaneuver the missile
Or just as an EMP weapon.
At that point why not just nuke the airfields if you're going to use air burst. Conventional weapons will always be vastly preferred over any nuclear weapons since the opponent cannot tell whether you are just firing an AA missile or about to nuke them.
CSBA previously had a hard figure of $20 Million for a 3000km IRBM in a report.
But CSBA subsequently removed all the missile cost proposals, probably because it pissed off their military-industrial complex sponsors who are charging way more ($40-$100 Million for hypersonic missiles)
You can call it legalised corruption or price-gouging.
---
Separate to this, is the presentation from the USAF, where he stated a 20x cost difference in "comparable hypersonic missile capability"
That is the ratio. But it is the average ratio covering total procurement cost of all platforms purchased. It does not specify cost per each weapon. Some may go above the ratio, some may be cheaper. It's an average. Determining the cost from a general ratio like that is not possible.
True. But that is just one methodology.
There are 2 others which would come to around $2 Million as well.