
Agree China CVs is not cost-efficient but once China goes for it, they don’t hold back expenditure. Between China and Russia, China has more yuan to spend than Russia has rubles and a yuan goes further than a ruble.
The Indians tried to go cheap with the Mig-29K but ended up with an inefficient CV no 1 that cost more to modify than build. The IN then screwed themselves with CV no 2 that they can’t operationalise quickly (different from the 1st), not to mention the aircraft issues. China could have gone the same way with the minsk hull but didn’t.
China has spent a lot less on CV development. J-15 and CV blueprints probably came cheap from Ukraine (who’d gladly screw the Russkis when they can). CV no 1 came as a cheap hull but now works better than the Russki CV. J-15 internals are ported from J-11/J-16 program. The 2xKuz-class CVs buys them time to train CV crews and develop CATOBAR. CV no 2, is projected to take only 2 years from launch to commission. There’s a lot of risk and costs but China is managing both so far.
P.s. It may cost $2xx million to repair a DDG but its a lot cheaper at a Russian yard. But its an unbudgeted cost for a small purse.