J-20... The New Generation Fighter III

Status
Not open for further replies.
Blitzo

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
latenlazy said:
I don't know if I believe that. Some buzz of that abound on keypublishing, but I haven't seen any first hand sources, and I that the one render they had of the PAK-FA with 2D nozzles had orthogonal angles, which would present corner reflectors for radar (which tells me it's probably a fan render).
Click to expand...

I remember one poster providing a link that a patent for a rectangular tvc nOzzle was issued by the t-50s engine suppliers-- and the Russians have experimented with rectangular nozzles too (that photo of a flanker with it's starboard nozzle converted). I consider the potential of a t-50 with stealthy nozzles to be a real possibility.
Of course, that probably will not massively change the dynamic between the big three, but it will nevertheless be a bit "meh" for us.
 
L

latenlazy

Brigadier
Bltizo said:
I remember one poster providing a link that a patent for a rectangular tvc nOzzle was issued by the t-50s engine suppliers-- and theyve experimented with rectangular nozzles too. I consider the potential of a t-50 with stealthy nozzles to be a real possibility.
Of course, that probably will not massively change the dynamic between the big three, but it will nevertheless be a bit "meh" for us.
Click to expand...

Oh, that. Maybe it's just because I've followed the tech industry for so long, but having a patent rarely ever confirms for me the idea will actually be implemented. I don't doubt the Russians have 2D TVC technology already though. It's unlikely that China doesn't have that technology as well, or can't develop it in short order. It's more of whether they see it fit to implement, but we'll find out later I suppose. We don't even know when the WS-15 will be installed or if it'll encounter delays.
 
vesicles

vesicles

Colonel
CottageLV said:
Despite of how cheap the J-20 will be, it would still be multiple times more expensive than the F22, comparatively speaking in relation to GDP and GNP. I have seen a post somewhere before, saying that even J-10 is more expensive than F22. This guy calculated the overall resources (not just natural resources alone, but a broader meaning) a nation has and how many hours of labour/work/effort per citizen to create enough resources to build the jet. According to his calculation, the F22 consumes less effort from the American workforce than does the J-10. This is very pragmatic approach to evaluate.

Get the moral of the story?
Click to expand...

I don't think how that poster had compiled his data, i.e. how he found all the various parameters, such as the overall resources, etc. If I understand correctly, the outcome of his/her calculation depends a lot on how accurate his information is. And we all know how China is "not transparent" about their info. So I doubt this poster that you are quoting can actually get accurate data for his estimates. One more thing, you mentioned that one factor is "how many hours of labour/work/effort per citizen to create enough resources to build the jet". So that means population will have to be the denominator. Well, we know know big this denominator is for China, which means the outcome of this calculation will be a very small # for China...

However, one kind of data that is available and that we can compare is per cent GDP. I personally have no idea what % GDP either China or the US uses for defense purposes. If someone can find those numbers, it would be a good way of measuring which fighter is more expensive.
 
FriedRiceNSpice

FriedRiceNSpice

Captain
CottageLV said:
Despite of how cheap the J-20 will be, it would still be multiple times more expensive than the F22, comparatively speaking in relation to GDP and GNP. I have seen a post somewhere before, saying that even J-10 is more expensive than F22. This guy calculated the overall resources (not just natural resources alone, but a broader meaning) a nation has and how many hours of labour/work/effort per citizen to create enough resources to build the jet. According to his calculation, the F22 consumes less effort from the American workforce than does the J-10. This is very pragmatic approach to evaluate.
For example, a wealthy man with fortune in the tens of millions told a middle class blue-collar that BMWs are cheap, he should buy it, because Ferraris are too expensive for him. This wealthy man is half correct, because this blue-collar definitely could not afford the Ferrari. But the BMW is still too expensive for him. It is achievable, but the car loans would drain all his dispensable income. On the other hand, Ferraris are very expensive, but with this man's fortune, he could buy hundreds of them as if they were toys. Although expensive, they are cheap for this millionaire.

Get the moral of the story?
Click to expand...

USA GDP = $14.6 trillion
PRC GDP = $5.9 trillion

Flyaway Cost of 100 F-22s = $15 billion
Flyaway Cost of 100 J-10 = $2.5 billion

100 F-22s as % of US GDP = 0.102%
100 J-10s as % of PRC GDP = 0.042%

Moral of the Story: the actual production costs of both aircrafts are insignificant... its the maintenance and operation costs that are relevant. F-22 costs nearly as much to maintain and operate as to build, while I would imagine a single-engine J-10 to be dirt-cheap to maintain and operate.
 
FriedRiceNSpice

FriedRiceNSpice

Captain
vesicles said:
I don't think how that poster had compiled his data, i.e. how he found all the various parameters, such as the overall resources, etc. If I understand correctly, the outcome of his/her calculation depends a lot on how accurate his information is. And we all know how China is "not transparent" about their info. So I doubt this poster that you are quoting can actually get accurate data for his estimates. One more thing, you mentioned that one factor is "how many hours of labour/work/effort per citizen to create enough resources to build the jet". So that means population will have to be the denominator. Well, we know know big this denominator is for China, which means the outcome of this calculation will be a very small # for China...

However, one kind of data that is available and that we can compare is per cent GDP. I personally have no idea what % GDP either China or the US uses for defense purposes. If someone can find those numbers, it would be a good way of measuring which fighter is more expensive.
Click to expand...

Wow I began my calculations before I saw your post... We must think alike!
 
kwaigonegin

kwaigonegin

Colonel
FriedRiceNSpice said:
Wow I began my calculations before I saw your post... We must think alike!
Click to expand...

DEPARTMENT Of dEfENSE
Funding Highlights:
• Provides $533.7 billion for the Department of Defense base budget in 2010, a four-percent increase over 2009.
• Includes $75.5 billion in supplemental appropriations for 2009 and $130.0 billion for 2010 to support ongoing overseas contingency operations, while increasing efforts in Afghanistan and drawing down troops from Iraq responsibly.
• Supports a transparent budget process, which simultaneously and separately requests
estimated base budget and overseas contingency operations costs.
• Expands concurrent receipt of military retired pay and Veterans Disability Compensation for those disabled upon retirement from active duty.
• Improves efforts to care for wounded servicemembers and to treat mental health needs.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Rank Country Military expenditure, 2010[2] % of GDP, 2009

1 United States 698,105,000,000 4.7%
2 People's Republic of China 114,000,000,000 2.2%

0b7ea9b398bc3d1defb7852c62eb50e3.png


Source is wikipedia so I can't say it's totally 100% accurate. Also true speding by China is impossible to tell because of dozens of unknown variables in state owned military acquisitions and personnel salaries etc
 
I

i.e.

Senior Member
kwaigonegin said:
Source is wikipedia so I can't say it's totally 100% accurate. Also true speding by China is impossible to tell because of dozens of unknown variables in state owned military acquisitions and personnel salaries etc
Click to expand...

Official US military spending don't account for
1) direct vet benefits
2) social security benefits for disabled vets
3) service on debts as a result of military spending.
4) allies like Japan fork up substantial sums towards US military presences mostly through construction of bases.
 
J

johnqh

Junior Member
It does not make sense for T50 to get the rectangle 2D nozzles.

The shape of the nozzle/rear body has a large impact over the drag. For example, F4's rear body is optimized for the J79 engines. When the Brits changed the engines to Spey, although Spey is more powerful than J79, it does not match the rear body design and thus the fighter performance dropped.

Traditional, a twin-engined fighter with close-coupled engines creates a lot of drag between the two engine bumps. This layout is perfect for rectangle nozzles because they eliminate the deep valleys between the engines. So, while the nozzle has a performance penalty, it has the benefit of lower drag.


This cannot be said about single engine fighter like F35 or far-coupled twin-engines fighter like T50. If they use rectangle nozzles, they will only have the performance penalties without benefit on the drag.


J20, on the other hand, could use the nozzles.
 
D

delft

Brigadier
i.e. said:
Official US military spending don't account for
1) direct vet benefits
2) social security benefits for disabled vets
3) service on debts as a result of military spending.
4) allies like Japan fork up substantial sums towards US military presences mostly through construction of bases.
Click to expand...
Nuclear bombs are paid for by the Dept of Energy, not by the Pentagon.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top