075 LHD discussion


Lethe

Senior Member
Wouldn't be the first time we've seen ships moved and pennant numbers painted and folks have assumed they are therefore commissioned with Wikis altered accordingly, only for news of a commissioning ceremony to emerge weeks or months later.
 

peterc

Just Hatched
Registered Member
I'm new to the defense related matter, but super interested in the subject.

Can someone comment on if this news is true or just a dream. why would PLA want Ka52 on the 75?

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

thanks
 

gelgoog

Brigadier
Registered Member
The Ka-52 is a heavier attack helicopter than the WZ-10. It can also carry larger anti-ship weapons than the WZ-10.
 

j17wang

Senior Member
Registered Member
The Ka-52 is a heavier attack helicopter than the WZ-10. It can also carry larger anti-ship weapons than the WZ-10.
It works better, so why not buy it. We still have plenty to learn from Russia on helicopters, china hasn't focused on that as much as ships or jets.
 

AndrewS

Brigadier
Registered Member
It works better, so why not buy it. We still have plenty to learn from Russia on helicopters, china hasn't focused on that as much as ships or jets.

I'd approach it from a different angle.

The Russians have already spent the money to develop a navalised KA-52 attack helicopter.
It is now in service and presumably has all the bugs worked out.

Given that China only needs a few (36) naval attack helicopters, is there any point in China spending the money to develop and then debug a naval Z-10 variant?

I could easily see the development cost exceeding $1 Billion, considering the US just spent $25 Billion on developing an updated CH-53K King Stallion.

At the same time, it looks like the Ka-52 only costs $15 Million each. At that price, 36 KA-52 would only cost $0.54 Billion.
Plus the Russians could do with some help in any case.

esut.de/en/2021/10/meldungen/30475/preis-fuer-russische-super-alligatoren-offengelegt/#:~:text=Local%20journalists%20received%20the%20insurance,at%20the%20current%20exchange%20rate.
 

Andy1974

Junior Member
Registered Member
I'd approach it from a different angle.

The Russians have already spent the money to develop a navalised KA-52 attack helicopter.
It is now in service and presumably has all the bugs worked out.

Given that China only needs a few (36) naval attack helicopters, is there any point in China spending the money to develop and then debug a naval Z-10 variant?

I could easily see the development cost exceeding $1 Billion, considering the US just spent $25 Billion on developing an updated CH-53K King Stallion.

At the same time, it looks like the Ka-52 only costs $15 Million each. At that price, 36 KA-52 would only cost $0.54 Billion.
Plus the Russians could do with some help in any case.

esut.de/en/2021/10/meldungen/30475/preis-fuer-russische-super-alligatoren-offengelegt/#:~:text=Local%20journalists%20received%20the%20insurance,at%20the%20current%20exchange%20rate.
Andrew your calculations never take into account the fact that China creates talent and develops skills every time it does something itself. nor do you consider the wider effects on the economy, such as providing jobs for all their graduates and making sure that no stone is unturned in their quest for mastery.

It is not always about money, yet you always consider that to be the most important factor, but wars are not won by accountants.
 

AndrewS

Brigadier
Registered Member
Andrew your calculations never take into account the fact that China creates talent and develops skills every time it does something itself. nor do you consider the wider effects on the economy, such as providing jobs for all their graduates and making sure that no stone is unturned in their quest for mastery.

It is not always about money, yet you always consider that to be the most important factor, but wars are not won by accountants.

Arms races are actually won by calculating the costs versus benefits of every activity. That applies to business as well.

Buying Ka-52s means a closer economic and military relationship with Russia, which is now a quasi-ally.

If China wanted to do it by itself, it would take a few years and cost a lot more.
The military defence spending multiplier is generally between 0.6 and 1.2

So if China can buy these helicopters for half the price of doing it themselves, they can use the overall savings to fund something else instead. That works out better overall for both China and Russia. It's just another example of comparative advantage.
 
Last edited:

PiSigma

"the engineer"
Arms races are actually won by calculating the costs versus benefits of every activity. That applies to business as well.

Buying Ka-52s means a closer economic and military relationship with Russia, which is now a quasi-ally.

If China wanted to do it by itself, it would take a few years and cost a lot more.
The military defence spending multiplier is generally between 0.6 and 1.2

So if China can buy these helicopters for half the price of doing it themselves, they can use the overall savings to fund something else instead. That works out better overall for both China and Russia. It's just another example of comparative advantage.
Tell that to Huawei.

China might buy some Ka-52s. But will develop her own improved version at same time.
 

Top