Chengdu J-36 - Chinese 6th gen fighter
- Elite 3K
- Posts: 3297
- Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
- Location: Singapore
The Soviets spent 12-14% of GDP on military. US will need to triple its defense budget to match.
Looking at ROI, don't really get that many aircraft for the sizable budget. That is an issue.
Looking at ROI, don't really get that many aircraft for the sizable budget. That is an issue.
- Elite 5K
- Posts: 6957
- Joined: 13 Mar 2013, 08:31
- Location: Finland
weasel1962 wrote:The Soviets spent 12-14% of GDP on military. US will need to triple its defense budget to match.
Looking at ROI, don't really get that many aircraft for the sizable budget. That is an issue.
This and also Soviet GDP was a lot lower than that ot USA and whole Warsaw Pact economy was tiny in comparison to whole NATO. On top of that their economy was stagnant and very one-sided (heavy industry and military production). None of this is true when it comes to China vs USA or especially whole NATO. Basically it'd be pretty much impossible for China to do that to USA. Of course it'd also be much more difficult for USA/Western countries to do the same to China as it's nothing like USSR except very vaguely in the political system and state control .
- Elite 3K
- Posts: 3297
- Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
- Location: Singapore
Soviet GNP in 1990 was 50% of US GNP. Its 63% when Warsaw pact is included.
As important was that Soviet+WP population was 400m v US population then (250m).
Source:
https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/TH ... 916%5D.pdf
That is roughly the same ratio as China's GDP (~US$19t) to US GDP today (US$30t) with the same population advantage in China's favor. No surprise US targets China as its primary "competitor" today. No one else comes close (except EU). The risk is not US collapse but the reverse ie China collapse.
As important was that Soviet+WP population was 400m v US population then (250m).
Source:
https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/TH ... 916%5D.pdf
That is roughly the same ratio as China's GDP (~US$19t) to US GDP today (US$30t) with the same population advantage in China's favor. No surprise US targets China as its primary "competitor" today. No one else comes close (except EU). The risk is not US collapse but the reverse ie China collapse.
- Elite 5K
- Posts: 6957
- Joined: 13 Mar 2013, 08:31
- Location: Finland
weasel1962 wrote:Soviet GNP in 1990 was 50% of US GNP. Its 63% when Warsaw pact is included.
As important was that Soviet+WP population was 400m v US population then (250m).
Source:
https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/TH ... 916%5D.pdf
That is roughly the same ratio as China's GDP (~US$19t) to US GDP today (US$30t) with the same population advantage in China's favor. No surprise US targets China as its primary "competitor" today. No one else comes close (except EU). The risk is not US collapse but the reverse ie China collapse.
Yes and but consider this:
USA + rest of NATO and other allies (Japan, South-Korea, Australia mainly) GDP something like four times higher than China. Also the combined population is much larger even compared to China which really doesn't have allies which is both weakness and strength for it.
Of course the problem is that USA and allies are all separate countries with different interests and goals whereas China doesn't have that problem and can act quickly and efficiently. It would be really important for USA, NATO, EU and other allies to get more coherent political goals and military co-operation. There are some good signs for that like increased military spending in NATO and Asian countries, but there are also some concerning issues. But if we can act coherently and intelligently, China should be able to be contained militarily, politically and economically. If we don't, then we can be in trouble in the future.
- Banned
- Posts: 478
- Joined: 13 May 2024, 12:07
Has anyone stopped to consider what the costs of this plane might be?
Think of it this way.
The J-10 is single engine and costs up to 80 million dollars.
The J-20 has 2 engines, and a stealth design, and is reported to costs 110
This j-36 supposedly a 6th gen design, and with 3 engines Just the engine costs alone will be 10-20 million over the J-10.
The plane is very large. I am guessing that we are talking close to 200 million cost.
This is not a plane that will have an end production run of 2000.
I estimate the costs starts at $150 million USD. And let's not forget this is not a plane than can be made with sweatshop Chinese labor.
Think of it this way.
The J-10 is single engine and costs up to 80 million dollars.
The J-20 has 2 engines, and a stealth design, and is reported to costs 110
This j-36 supposedly a 6th gen design, and with 3 engines Just the engine costs alone will be 10-20 million over the J-10.
The plane is very large. I am guessing that we are talking close to 200 million cost.
This is not a plane that will have an end production run of 2000.
I estimate the costs starts at $150 million USD. And let's not forget this is not a plane than can be made with sweatshop Chinese labor.
- Elite 2K
- Posts: 2871
- Joined: 27 Feb 2008, 23:40
- Location: Serbia, Belgrade
J-10 80 mill is export price, while J-20 110 mill is domestic price.
J-36 is at least 150 mill if we look price tag for J-20 which PLAAF is paying.
But J-36 on other hand is bomber/fighter so we don't expect it match J-20 numbers. J-50 is different story though, I doubt there is big price difference between J-20 and J-50.
J-36 is at least 150 mill if we look price tag for J-20 which PLAAF is paying.
But J-36 on other hand is bomber/fighter so we don't expect it match J-20 numbers. J-50 is different story though, I doubt there is big price difference between J-20 and J-50.
-
- Elite 2K
- Posts: 2451
- Joined: 31 Dec 2010, 00:44
- Location: San Antonio, TX
https://www.twz.com/air/chinas-massive- ... -prototype
Second J-36 prototype shows some pretty major changes.
The nozzles have changed to F-22 style. If I were to guess, perhaps flight testing discovered inadequate pitch authority during supersonic flight, hence implementing TVC to solve that?
The intakes changed from cater intakes to DSI. No image of the top so not sure if the top intake is still present.
These drastic changes do show that the J-36 is likely still in technology demonstrator stage, so still quite a ways from production and service. Again, we flew our NGAD demonstrator for the F-47 back in 2019, and the EMD aircraft is supposed to fly in 2028 although that could be delayed as well.
Second J-36 prototype shows some pretty major changes.
The nozzles have changed to F-22 style. If I were to guess, perhaps flight testing discovered inadequate pitch authority during supersonic flight, hence implementing TVC to solve that?
The intakes changed from cater intakes to DSI. No image of the top so not sure if the top intake is still present.
These drastic changes do show that the J-36 is likely still in technology demonstrator stage, so still quite a ways from production and service. Again, we flew our NGAD demonstrator for the F-47 back in 2019, and the EMD aircraft is supposed to fly in 2028 although that could be delayed as well.
- Elite 5K
- Posts: 5418
- Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
- Location: Parts Unknown
I think USAF is wise to keep the F-47 a secret (unlike most of our prior programs).
The Chinese have incredible resources but testing and developing all these 6th gen fighters costs $. Lots and lots of it, no matter what currency you use. If they had even basic info about the F-47, they'd at least be able to narrow their efforts.
FWIW, I do NOT think the J-36 is a fighter for the air superiority mission. That doesn't mean it can't use/fire AAM's, but it has a lot more in common with regional bombers IMO vs. a fighter.
The Chinese have incredible resources but testing and developing all these 6th gen fighters costs $. Lots and lots of it, no matter what currency you use. If they had even basic info about the F-47, they'd at least be able to narrow their efforts.
FWIW, I do NOT think the J-36 is a fighter for the air superiority mission. That doesn't mean it can't use/fire AAM's, but it has a lot more in common with regional bombers IMO vs. a fighter.
- Elite 3K
- Posts: 3297
- Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
- Location: Singapore
ASM/strike capability, if internally equipped, will need to be tested at some point.
CCA also allows missile drone carriers to support, even if the mothership doesn't carry ASMs. In that sense, range may be one of the J-36's greatest asset.
Eg GJ-X
https://www.globalsecurity.org/military ... a/gj-x.htm
CCA also allows missile drone carriers to support, even if the mothership doesn't carry ASMs. In that sense, range may be one of the J-36's greatest asset.
Eg GJ-X
https://www.globalsecurity.org/military ... a/gj-x.htm
-
- Elite 2K
- Posts: 2451
- Joined: 31 Dec 2010, 00:44
- Location: San Antonio, TX
https://www.twz.com/air/chinas-6th-gene ... -test-base
Satellite photos of J-36 at PLAAF test site in Lop Nur from September this year. Length is about 19 meters and wingspan is just under 20 meters. Interestingly, it shows the wingspan to be slightly greater the length, so it likely won’t have high supersonic speeds, probably Mach 1.5 or so.
That being said, the proposed FB-22 in the longest range FB-22-4 also has wingspan greater than length, and is also supposed to be supersonic. But likewise with the J-36, it may only be able to marginally supercruise (Mach 1.1-1.2), if at all.
Satellite photos of J-36 at PLAAF test site in Lop Nur from September this year. Length is about 19 meters and wingspan is just under 20 meters. Interestingly, it shows the wingspan to be slightly greater the length, so it likely won’t have high supersonic speeds, probably Mach 1.5 or so.
That being said, the proposed FB-22 in the longest range FB-22-4 also has wingspan greater than length, and is also supposed to be supersonic. But likewise with the J-36, it may only be able to marginally supercruise (Mach 1.1-1.2), if at all.