China announces $178.2 billion military budget

[Type59]

Whats the unofficial budget that china is speculated to actually spend on defence? Must be atleast 300 billion.

 

[xuxu1457]

Whats the unofficial budget that china is speculated to actually spend on defence? Must be atleast 300 billion.

There's nothing to hide, believe me.
1. There is no need to hide.Even $300 billion is only 2% of GDP. This proportion is not high, so why hide it?
2.There is no way to hide, because the military expenditure comes from the expenditure of the central government, and the income of the central government is fixed and open.
3.The amount of military expenditure is sufficient at present.The total amount of China's military expenditure has increased rapidly with the development of GDP.From 2000 (1trillion $)to the present, China's GDP has increased by 15 times in 20 yearsThe military expenditure has also increased by almost 15 times.So for the army, this is enough for the time being.Eating too much is easy to digest.

 

[ozranger]

Whats the unofficial budget that china is speculated to actually spend on defence? Must be atleast 300 billion.

They don't need to hide.

Their financial model is getting civilian product development to pay as much as possible for keeping their key employees constantly employed on R&D and high skill demanding manufacturing sectors.

So the same workforce can be shared across development of civilian and military products in the same companies. As such every major Chinese weapon developer is also making a lot of civilian products.

For example in ship building industry, the Chinese ship builders develop and build a lot of civilian ships. That significantly lowers their cost in building warships as the workforce are being shared. Whereas in the US, the ship building companies hardly have civilian ship building businesses and that makes it very hard to keep skilled workers on board in a company as the defense spending is not always there. So the ship builders have to pay their skilled workers more in short contracts or keep paying them even when there is no work. Either way highers up their product prices.

Worth pointing out that western companies are also trying to do the same thing. Some are doing quite good but also limited by their high salary payout.

As for the US, things are a bit more extreme. Their economy relies highly on stock markets, which makes it harder and harder now for most companies to do things similar to what is being done by their Chinese counterparts. Such a topic may be too big to discuss by here. However you can watch how Boeing is performing in the coming years and probably make up some interesting conclusion.

 

[Grandy]

Do you think WS-15 will come anywhere close to the reliability and lifespan of the F-119 engine?
It could match it's T/W ratio but no way it's reliability and lifespan.

2010s WS-10B is nowhere near the reliability or lifespan of an equivalent US engine from the 1990s.

Look your Kavery engine, maybe ten years later not ready, Its Arihant only comparable with Type 091.

 

[IblinI]

Look your Kavery engine, maybe ten years later not ready, Its Arihant only comparable with Type 091.

He is not Indian, chill.
People are allowed to have doubts about our equipment,it's normal.

 

[Figaro]

Look your Kavery engine, maybe ten years later not ready, Its Arihant only comparable with Type 091.

It's possible the WS-15 will be comparable to the F119 in terms of reliability/lifespan. You are after all talking about an engine that is almost a quarter century old. As seen in the latest WS-10 variants, a lot of attention has been paid to improving the reliability of the engine ... besides increasing the TWR from 7.5 to approaching 9, a lot of effort has been put into material improvements (e.g. manufacturing quality of the single crystal and PM superalloys, blisks etc). The WS-10 already exceeded design specifications in terms of MTBO and lifespan back in 2016.

Whats the unofficial budget that china is speculated to actually spend on defence? Must be atleast 300 billion.

If it's unofficial, how are we supposed to know?

 

[UKBengali]

It's possible the WS-15 will be comparable to the F119 in terms of reliability/lifespan. You are after all talking about an engine that is almost a quarter century old. As seen in the latest WS-10 variants, a lot of attention has been paid to improving the reliability of the engine ... besides increasing the TWR from 7.5 to approaching 9, a lot of effort has been put into material improvements (e.g. manufacturing quality of the single crystal and PM superalloys, blisks etc). The WS-10 already exceeded design specifications in terms of MTBO and lifespan back in 2016.

If it's unofficial, how are we supposed to know?

Absolutely impossible. Period.

US engines from the 1990s are super super reliable. They can go on for maybe 8000 hours, which is as long as the lifespan of the fighter itself. To suggest that the WS-10B is anywhere near 8000 hours of lifespan is totally unrealistic.

I think that Chinese engines are probably a little bit more reliable and have a higher lifespan than Russia now but to think they are anywhere near the US even of the 1990s is pretty wishful thinking.

People forget that engine tech is just as much art as science and the Chinese will just have to learn the hard and long way how to make engines reliable and have a long lifespan.

 

[CAPRICORN-88]

Absolutely impossible. Period.

US engines from the 1990s are super super reliable. They can go on for maybe 8000 hours, which is as long as the lifespan of the fighter itself. To suggest that the WS-10B is anywhere near 8000 hours of lifespan is totally unrealistic.

I think that Chinese engines are probably a little bit more reliable and have a higher lifespan than Russia now but to think they are anywhere near the US even of the 1990s is pretty wishful thinking.

People forget that engine tech is just as much art as science and the Chinese will just have to learn the hard and long way how to make engines reliable and have a long lifespan.

I am curious as to why a long lifespan for WS-10B is considered by you as not realistic. Care to explain?

 

[UKBengali]

I am curious as to why a long lifespan for WS-10B is considered by you as not realistic. Care to explain?

Lack of experience on China's part with turbofans.

US has been making turbofans since the 1960s.

 

[Figaro]

Absolutely impossible. Period.

US engines from the 1990s are super super reliable. They can go on for maybe 8000 hours, which is as long as the lifespan of the fighter itself. To suggest that the WS-10B is anywhere near 8000 hours of lifespan is totally unrealistic.

I think that Chinese engines are probably a little bit more reliable and have a higher lifespan than Russia now but to think they are anywhere near the US even of the 1990s is pretty wishful thinking.

People forget that engine tech is just as much art as science and the Chinese will just have to learn the hard and long way how to make engines reliable and have a long lifespan.

I am not claiming the WS-10 will be anything near the F119 in terms of reliability, even the latest variants. But I am saying the WS-15 and the WS-19 will be comparable to the F119. I don't know why this is so shocking ... the F101 engine was pretty unreliable when it first came out too (much like the initial WS-10s).

 

[CAPRICORN-88]

Lack of experience on China's part with turbofans.

US has been making turbofans since the 1960s.

Surely you came out with something better instead of defending your case with a straw man argument that is not based on facts.

On the basis of the same logic, can I assumed that the WS-10B engine is more reliable based on the fact that no PLAAF warplane flying with WS-10B has ever crashed to prove that it is more reliable than the rest.

 

[UKBengali]

I am not claiming the WS-10 will be anything near the F119 in terms of reliability, even the latest variants. But I am saying the WS-15 and the WS-19 will be comparable to the F119. I don't know why this is so shocking ... the F101 engine was pretty unreliable when it first came out too (much like the initial WS-10s).

Absolutely impossible that WS-15 will be as reliable and/or have the lifespan of the F-119 that came out in 2005 when the F-22 was introduced, let alone the current engines powering F-22s.

The F-119 is a development of the prototype engine(YF-119) that solely powered the YF-22 prototype back in 1990. It is not a completely new engine like the WS-15 is and so would be more mature at introduction than the WS-15 that may so far never have solely powered a J-20 yet.

 

[Figaro]

Absolutely impossible that WS-15 will be as reliable and/or have the lifespan of the F-119 that came out in 2005 when the F-22 was introduced, let alone the current engines powering F-22s.

The F-119 is a development of the prototype engine(YF-119) that solely powered the YF-22 prototype back in 1990. It is not a completely new engine like the WS-15 is and so would be more mature at introduction than the WS-15 that may so far never have solely powered a J-20 yet.

Nothing is impossible my friend. All I can tell you is that the WS-15 was designed with reliability approaching Western engines in mind ... in contrast with the WS-10, whose reliability currently exceeds that of design requirements. Ultimately, we have no way of gauging whose reliability will be better unless both the Chinese and Americans release stats about this. The first WS-15 that comes out may not be as reliable/mature ... I'll give you that but it will mature in a much shorter timeframe than the WS-10 due to the much more stringent testing requirements applied to it (compared to the WS-10 which was rushed out of development and hence suffered a lot of issues initially).

 

[letsrock]

IN a war situation how does engine reliability matter that much as long as their economy can make them- what matters is performance. Their economy will produce as many engines as they want But for countries importing engines then reliability is critical .

 

[CAPRICORN-88]

Nothing is impossible my friend. All I can tell you is that the WS-15 was designed with reliability approaching Western engines in mind ... in contrast with the WS-10, whose reliability currently exceeds that of design requirements. Ultimately, we have no way of gauging whose reliability will be better unless both the Chinese and Americans release stats about this. The first WS-15 that comes out may not be as reliable/mature ... I'll give you that but it will mature in a much shorter timeframe than the WS-10 due to the much more stringent testing requirements applied to it (compared to the WS-10 which was rushed out of development and hence suffered a lot of issues initially).

China used Rhenium in their superalloy.