JF-17/FC-1 Fighter Aircraft thread

[Saeed Khan]

Moreover, if the price for Gripens, F-16, etc. can be lowered, so can the price for JF-17 and J-10. In price competition, China will win every time, whether its shoes or ships.

That really is the bottom line and rest all conjecture/wishful thinking!

 

[Baibar of Jalat]

Here is a question to think about for this debate. If half of JF-17 profit goes to Pakistan and half of the profits of all suppliers also go to Pakistan as some have suggested proudly. Why would China want to sell JF-17 when it could pocket all the profits if it sells J-10?

Well there are many suppliers involved with JF 17 and J 10. Many might have more involvement in JF 17 then J 10. Therefore you should not look at it, simply, in terms of China and Pakistan as nations, when there are many individual suppliers involved in JF 17 and also J 10 projects. Therefore there is a significant incentive to back both projects. For example both use SD 10 missiles so obviously benefits missile producer regardless of what type of aircraft is sold.

 

[tphuang]

Well there are many suppliers involved with JF 17 and J 10. Many might have more involvement in JF 17 then J 10. Therefore you should not look at it, simply, in terms of China and Pakistan as nations, when there are many individual suppliers involved in JF 17 and also J 10 projects. Therefore there is a significant incentive to back both projects. For example both use SD 10 missiles so obviously benefits missile producer regardless of what type of aircraft is sold.

yeah, but there are people who are convinced that all of the parts on JF-17 regardless of where it is produced will be shared 50-50 in profits. So, if these suppliers have to give half of their profits to PAC, why would they do it if they can get all of the profits for J-10?

 

[Baibar of Jalat]

yeah, but there are people who are convinced that all of the parts on JF-17 regardless of where it is produced will be shared 50-50 in profits. So, if these suppliers have to give half of their profits to PAC, why would they do it if they can get all of the profits for J-10?

I do not think the Chinese suppliers for JF 17 will sell their products at cost to make price.

As already been highlighted JF 17 and J 10 are not directly competing against each other, they are designed to fill different roles (JF 17 light weight and J 10 medium weight). I think we need to de-empathise profits, naturally larger the profit is good, however revenue growth is just as important. Look at the civilian car industry; toyota has range of car models that appeal to the wealthy or too people that cannot afford luxary cars. They are maxiumising their appeal, Chengdu is doing the same. Then we can talk about politics of pak- china relations, however since both parties win with JF 17. Can you tell how China loses with this deal, they will still make a profit?

 

[tphuang]

I do not think the Chinese suppliers for JF 17 will sell their products at cost to make price.

As already been highlighted JF 17 and J 10 are not directly competing against each other, they are designed to fill different roles (JF 17 light weight and J 10 medium weight). I think we need to de-empathise profits, naturally larger the profit is good, however revenue growth is just as important. Look at the civilian car industry; toyota has range of car models that appeal to the wealthy or too people that cannot afford luxary cars. They are maxiumising their appeal, Chengdu is doing the same. Then we can talk about politics of pak- china relations, however since both parties win with JF 17. Can you tell how China loses with this deal, they will still make a profit?

you don't think Chinese companies seek profit when they produce parts? You don't think companies like XAC, CAC make money from producing parts for Boeing and Airbus? Dude, this is capitalism. You do realize these companies are traded and need to report their earnings, right?

Here is the thing, the suppliers for J-10 and JF-17 in China are pretty much the same company. If they get 100% of the profits for one contract and then have to give up half of their profits for another contract, why would they go for the lower profit?

So, your view is that China should tolerate less profit for it's quasi-state owned companies because the shareholders should care about China-Pakistan relations over profitability and hire stock prices?

 

[challenge]

buying FC-1 was an insurance,in case US embargo.
If the US give assurance there will be embargo, I am sure, PAF will select used F-16 over FC-1.

 

[rhino123]

buying FC-1 was an insurance,in case US embargo.
If the US give assurance there will be embargo, I am sure, PAF will select used F-16 over FC-1.

Why do you say that? And btw... US are selling new F-16 to PAF now. So by your logic... PAF would have stop the production of the FC-1 (which is not the case).

FC-1 is a good plane. It is a new plane, with all the new technology... and is highly versatile. old F-16 is... well... old. No matter how much modification you do to it... it is still an old plane with old frame.

So how could a second or third hand aircraft compete with a newly built first hand aircraft?

 

[Baibar of Jalat]

you don't think Chinese companies seek profit when they produce parts? You don't think companies like XAC, CAC make money from producing parts for Boeing and Airbus? Dude, this is capitalism. You do realize these companies are traded and need to report their earnings, right?

Here is the thing, the suppliers for J-10 and JF-17 in China are pretty much the same company. If they get 100% of the profits for one contract and then have to give up half of their profits for another contract, why would they go for the lower profit?

So, your view is that China should tolerate less profit for it's quasi-state owned companies because the shareholders should care about China-Pakistan relations over profitability and hire stock prices?

I think you have mis read my post. The Chinese suppliers will make profit on the components they supply to JF 17. Also if they do not take 100 percent profit, so what. Volkswagen supplies engines to Skoda, which has led Skoda to turn its fortunes around. According to you Volkswagen should not have made that decision, because they wont get profits from car sale, but only engine sale. Again Chinese suppliers will make a profit, if jet is successful worldwide. Its highly unlikely Chengdu makes everyhing in house, it is reliant on subcontractors who will always demand a profit from sale of components. I do think you misread my post, but I blame myself for not making myself clear.

 

[Zahid]

yeah, but there are people who are convinced that all of the parts on JF-17 regardless of where it is produced will be shared 50-50 in profits. So, if these suppliers have to give half of their profits to PAC, why would they do it if they can get all of the profits for J-10?

I doubt if profits on parts shall be shared, it does not make sense - the profit or loss on making parts lies with the manufacturer. If someone (Pakistani) has been boastful or proud then I apologize on their behalf. Pride does not become us, confidence might.

 

[tphuang]

I think you have mis read my post. The Chinese suppliers will make profit on the components they supply to JF 17. Also if they do not take 100 percent profit, so what. Volkswagen supplies engines to Skoda, which has led Skoda to turn its fortunes around. According to you Volkswagen should not have made that decision, because they wont get profits from car sale, but only engine sale. Again Chinese suppliers will make a profit, if jet is successful worldwide. Its highly unlikely Chengdu makes everyhing in house, it is reliant on subcontractors who will always demand a profit from sale of components. I do think you misread my post, but I blame myself for not making myself clear.

you wrote "I do not think the Chinese suppliers for JF 17 will sell their products at cost to make price." It does not make sense.

There are numerous suppliers in China. I assume that PAC would like to do some of the assemblies to make money off that. And in certain cases, they would like to also be the suppliers. But let's just look at the Chinese suppliers for JF-17. They are also likely to be the same companies that supply J-10. So, if China can pitch J-10 and JF-17 to the same market. And in several markets out there, J-10 would be a lot more competitive than JF-17 in terms of price to capability ratio. And in one case, the suppliers would only be getting half of the profit, do you think they would not be complaining to the gov't and the military?