Bangladesh plans $2.2b purchase of 20 Chinese J-10 fighter jets

[Michael]

I can’t see any reason why China shouldn’t sell the J-10CE to Bangladesh, right? For China, first of all, this deal can expand the export of the J-10CE. Secondly, it can contain India on its eastern flank. This is an excellent option. I don’t think you guys need to split hairs over this. This deal will definitely go through.
China and Bangladesh are traditional neighbors and friends. Moreover, Bangladesh, like China, has reservations about India. So the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

The core of the issue does not lie in the question of "to sell or not to sell," but rather in the specific terms and conditions of the transaction.

Bangladesh’s initial proposal was to replicate the model used by the Pakistan Air Force (PAF) for the procurement of J-10CE fighter jets. However, it is clear that Bangladesh does not enjoy the same level of creditworthiness with China as Pakistan does.

Consequently, Bangladesh’s latest proposal consists of a "20% down payment followed by six installment payments." I believe that CATIC—or the relevant Chinese authorities—is currently evaluating this proposal. At least for now, the two sides have not yet signed a contract. The matter remains unsettled. This depends on the assessment of Bangladesh by professional financial institutions from the Chinese side.

If Bangladesh were to opt for a direct, one-time cash payment rather than an installment plan, there would be no issue whatsoever. In fact, if they wished to purchase the FC-31/J-35 fighter jet, the Shenyang Aircraft Corporation (SAC) could even prioritize its production and delivery for them.

However, if they choose an installment-based payment model, their repayment capacity must be taken into account.

Consider the process of purchasing real estate: one can choose to pay in full upfront or via installments. A full, one-time payment makes the procedure quick and straightforward. Opting for installments, by contrast, inevitably entails a complex series of requirements from financial institutions—and approval is not guaranteed. Yet, one certainly cannot claim that the developer is unwilling to sell the property.

 

[Yasser76]

The core of the issue does not lie in the question of "to sell or not to sell," but rather in the specific terms and conditions of the transaction.

Bangladesh’s initial proposal was to replicate the model used by the Pakistan Air Force (PAF) for the procurement of J-10CE fighter jets. However, it is clear that Bangladesh does not enjoy the same level of creditworthiness with China as Pakistan does.

Consequently, Bangladesh’s latest proposal consists of a "20% down payment followed by six installment payments." I believe that CATIC—or the relevant Chinese authorities—is currently evaluating this proposal. At least for now, the two sides have not yet signed a contract. The matter remains unsettled. This depends on the assessment of Bangladesh by professional financial institutions from the Chinese side.

If Bangladesh were to opt for a direct, one-time cash payment rather than an installment plan, there would be no issue whatsoever. In fact, if they wished to purchase the FC-31/J-35 fighter jet, the Shenyang Aircraft Corporation (SAC) could even prioritize its production and delivery for them.

However, if they choose an installment-based payment model, their repayment capacity must be taken into account.

Consider the process of purchasing real estate: one can choose to pay in full upfront or via installments. A full, one-time payment makes the procedure quick and straightforward. Opting for installments, by contrast, inevitably entails a complex series of requirements from financial institutions—and approval is not guaranteed. Yet, one certainly cannot claim that the developer is unwilling to sell the property.

"In fact, if they wished to purchase the FC-31/J-35 fighter jet, the Shenyang Aircraft Corporation (SAC) could even prioritize its production and delivery for them."

This statement contradicts everything you have written about J-35 exports in the past

 

[Michael]

"In fact, if they wished to purchase the FC-31/J-35 fighter jet, the Shenyang Aircraft Corporation (SAC) could even prioritize its production and delivery for them."

This statement contradicts everything you have written about J-35 exports in the past

This is not a contradiction; rather, you have taken things out of context and overlooked the first part of the text.

This depends on the terms of the transaction. If a deal involves full, upfront cash payment, its priority will naturally be higher; conversely, if it involves financing or installment payments, the priority will be lower.

Regarding the J-35 series: the naval variant is not intended for international customers and remains unaffected. The J-35A—the variant for the PLA Air Force (PLAAF)—is powered by the WS-19 engine, which is still undergoing further development and refinement; consequently, the PLAAF has not placed a high priority on the procurement of the J-35A. In contrast, the export version, designated as the FC-31/J-35, utilizes the WS-21 engine—an engine for which production lines have been operational for several years. Therefore, it would come as no surprise if the Shenyang Aircraft Corporation (SAC) were to elevate the production priority for the export variant, should an international client be willing to provide full, upfront cash payment.

It is worth noting that the J-35 series is the first Chinese fighter jet to be marketed internationally before even entering service with the People's Liberation Army (PLA).

However, when China exports fighter jets, it customizes them according to the client's specific requirements. Typically, an initial batch of about six aircraft is delivered first; these are used by the client for a period, and the feedback gathered is then used to make adjustments before subsequent batches are produced. This approach is intended to ensure a positive operational experience for the client, rather than being a deliberate attempt to slow down the pace of production.

 

[Yasser76]

This is not a contradiction; rather, you have taken things out of context and overlooked the first part of the text.

This depends on the terms of the transaction. If a deal involves full, upfront cash payment, its priority will naturally be higher; conversely, if it involves financing or installment payments, the priority will be lower.

Regarding the J-35 series: the naval variant is not intended for international customers and remains unaffected. The J-35A—the variant for the PLA Air Force (PLAAF)—is powered by the WS-19 engine, which is still undergoing further development and refinement; consequently, the PLAAF has not placed a high priority on the procurement of the J-35A. In contrast, the export version, designated as the FC-31/J-35, utilizes the WS-21 engine—an engine for which production lines have been operational for several years. Therefore, it would come as no surprise if the Shenyang Aircraft Corporation (SAC) were to elevate the production priority for the export variant, should an international client be willing to provide full, upfront cash payment.

It is worth noting that the J-35 series is the first Chinese fighter jet to be marketed internationally before even entering service with the People's Liberation Army (PLA).

Well not quite, you mentioned the fact China would be very wary about introducing more advanced sensitive tech into the region for fear of upsetting balance of power too much in Pak favour, I disagreed at the time and now you are basically saying if BD has the cash it will get J-35 almost straight away.

So which one is it?

 

[Michael]

Well not quite, you mentioned the fact China would be very wary about introducing more advanced sensitive tech into the region for fear of upsetting balance of power too much in Pak favour, I disagreed at the time and now you are basically saying if BD has the cash it will get J-35 almost straight away.

So which one is it?

There may be some misunderstandings in how things were phrased. Perhaps you could provide the original text?

If Bangladesh were to pay the full amount in cash, there would essentially be no issues.

However, if Bangladesh were to use an installment-based payment plan, many factors would need to be considered—specifically regarding financial security.

When China exports weapons, the fact that an export license has already been granted means that national security concerns are not an issue. Nevertheless, financial risk assessments must still take potential financial hazards into account.

To put it more plainly, Bangladesh currently faces significant political risk. If an installment plan or other financing model were used, a new government might well employ various tactics to repudiate contracts signed by its predecessor—a classic example of a financial security risk in international politics.

This is quite common in China’s international diplomacy; we have encountered many such cases abroad. Contracts signed by a previous administration are often rejected by a new one, or new policies and regulations are introduced, or the new government demands a renegotiation of terms.

Even now, new mineral regulations in Indonesia have caused substantial losses for many Chinese enterprises—a situation that is still under negotiation. The same applies to issues surrounding public-private partnership (PPP) projects in the power sector in Pakistan.

Regarding the arms trade: if the full amount is paid upfront, we have no such concerns. But if payments are to be made in installments, these risks must be taken into account.

 

[maxpane]

Well not quite, you mentioned the fact China would be very wary about introducing more advanced sensitive tech into the region for fear of upsetting balance of power too much in Pak favour, I disagreed at the time and now you are basically saying if BD has the cash it will get J-35 almost straight away.

So which one is it?

 

[Yasser76]

There may be some misunderstandings in how things were phrased. Perhaps you could provide the original text?

If Bangladesh were to pay the full amount in cash, there would essentially be no issues.

However, if Bangladesh were to use an installment-based payment plan, many factors would need to be considered—specifically regarding financial security.

When China exports weapons, the fact that an export license has already been granted means that national security concerns are not an issue. Nevertheless, financial risk assessments must still take potential financial hazards into account.

To put it more plainly, Bangladesh currently faces significant political risk. If an installment plan or other financing model were used, a new government might well employ various tactics to repudiate contracts signed by its predecessor—a classic example of a financial security risk in international politics.

This is quite common in China’s international diplomacy; we have encountered many such cases abroad. Contracts signed by a previous administration are often rejected by a new one, or new policies and regulations are introduced, or the new government demands a renegotiation of terms.

Even now, new mineral regulations in Indonesia have caused substantial losses for many Chinese enterprises—a situation that is still under negotiation. The same applies to issues surrounding public-private partnership (PPP) projects in the power sector in Pakistan.

Regarding the arms trade: if the full amount is paid upfront, we have no such concerns. But if payments are to be made in installments, these risks must be taken into account.

The conversation was not on economics, but on the introduction of technology into the region. So you are now stating China has no problem with J-35 in South Asia? J-35 in a country that could possibly turn very pro Indian overnight?

 

[Michael]

The conversation was not on economics, but on the introduction of technology into the region. So you are now stating China has no problem with J-35 in South Asia? J-35 in a country that could possibly turn very pro Indian overnight?

Policy considerations do not pertain to the security of weapons technology; rather, they relate to financial security. These are entirely different concepts.

Following the aerial engagement between India and Pakistan, India recovered the wreckage of a PL-15E air-to-air missile and threatened to reverse-engineer it. This was raised as a question during a press conference held by China’s Ministry of National Defense.
The official Chinese response was: "That is merely an export-variant product!"

I believe that makes the point quite clear.

 

[Yasser76]

Policy considerations do not pertain to the security of weapons technology; rather, they relate to financial security. These are entirely different concepts.

Following the aerial engagement between India and Pakistan, India recovered the wreckage of a PL-15E air-to-air missile and threatened to reverse-engineer it. This was raised as a question during a press conference held by China’s Ministry of National Defense.
The official Chinese response was: "That is merely an export-variant product!"

I believe that makes the point quite clear.

Do you have a link to that response at all, very interesting

 

[Michael]

Do you have a link to that response at all, very interesting

Wait a moment, I'll find you the official news link.

 

[El Sidd]

Policy considerations do not pertain to the security of weapons technology; rather, they relate to financial security. These are entirely different concepts.

Following the aerial engagement between India and Pakistan, India recovered the wreckage of a PL-15E air-to-air missile and threatened to reverse-engineer it. This was raised as a question during a press conference held by China’s Ministry of National Defense.
The official Chinese response was: "That is merely an export-variant product!"

I believe that makes the point quite clear.

Indians are used to carrying aircrafts on trucks. They have built a purpose built truck for it. They will literally tow them from Bangladesh. Export Variant or cash payments cannot outweigh this reality.

 

[Michael]

Do you have a link to that response at all, very interesting

Regular Press Conference of the Ministry of National Defense of China, May 2025

Original text:

记者：我有两个问题。第一个问题...... 第二个问题，有消息称，印巴冲突中印方得到一枚未爆的PL-15E空空导弹，是否属实？会否造成相关军事科技被反向研制？

张晓刚：关于第一个问题。......
关于第二个问题。你所提到的这款导弹是出口装备，也曾多次亮相国内外防务展。

Google Translate:

Reporter: I have two questions. The first is... Regarding the second question: there have been reports suggesting that India recovered an unexploded PL-15E air-to-air missile during the India-Pakistan conflict. Is this true? And could it lead to the reverse engineering of the associated military technology?

Zhang Xiaogang: Regarding your first question...
As for the second question: the missile you mentioned is an export-variant piece of equipment, and it has been showcased on multiple occasions at both domestic and international defense exhibitions.

2025年5月国防部例行记者会文字实录 - 中华人民共和国国防部

www.mod.gov.cn

 

[Yasser76]

Regular Press Conference of the Ministry of National Defense of China, May 2025

Original text:

记者：我有两个问题。第一个问题...... 第二个问题，有消息称，印巴冲突中印方得到一枚未爆的PL-15E空空导弹，是否属实？会否造成相关军事科技被反向研制？

张晓刚：关于第一个问题。......
关于第二个问题。你所提到的这款导弹是出口装备，也曾多次亮相国内外防务展。

Reporter: I have two questions. The first is... Regarding the second question: there have been reports suggesting that India recovered an unexploded PL-15E air-to-air missile during the India-Pakistan conflict. Is this true? And could it lead to the reverse engineering of the associated military technology?

Zhang Xiaogang: Regarding your first question...
As for the second question: the missile you mentioned is an export-variant piece of equipment, and it has been showcased on multiple occasions at both domestic and international defense exhibitions.

2025年5月国防部例行记者会文字实录 - 中华人民共和国国防部

www.mod.gov.cn

Very interesting, thank you