He's generally considered to be credible within his area of expertise—European/Russian aircraft—and rather less so outside of it.
Shenyang next gen combat aircraft thread
- Thread starter Blitzo
- Start date
He's generally considered to be credible within his area of expertise—European/Russian aircraft—and rather less so outside of it.
He's wrong. The J-36 and J-50 clearly aim at different design specifications and goals. The US developed F-15 and F-16 simultaneously as well. They are not make work programs like he seems to be insinuating here.
I think the J-36 looks closer to a production aircraft but we will see. In my opinion Shenyang still seems somewhat uncomfortable with leading edge design compared with Chengdu so their initial designs are just rougher.
China has a clear need for a modern long range platform so I think J-36 will enter service.
I think the J-36 looks closer to a production aircraft but we will see. In my opinion Shenyang still seems somewhat uncomfortable with leading edge design compared with Chengdu so their initial designs are just rougher.
China has a clear need for a modern long range platform so I think J-36 will enter service.
Last edited:
by78
General
Please stop quoting Bronk. The guy has degrees in political science and history. His dissertation is titled Balancing Imagination and Design in British Combat Aircraft Development. Whatever that means. If I had to guess, Bronk is an interdisciplinary authority in the field of intersectional study of gender ecology and the contextual hermeneutics of Gertrude Stein and Gloria Steinem, with a special emphasis on deconstructionist (i.e. post-structuralist) LGBTQ+ history in modern air warfare pertaining to post-modernist archetypes of Liberation Theology, or something like that. To put simply, think Judith Butler meets Donna Haraway at a seminar taught by Michel Foucault in a fighter jet hangar repurposed as a queer monastery, and somehow Tom Cruise paid for all of it. Makes sense? I thought not.
In other words, Bronk is basically a better dressed David Axe with a British accent and a more developed Broca's area who probably drops acid on the regular.
Last edited:
You should post this as a comment under the youtube video.
I want to print this out and frame it. Pure gold. LMFAO.
1. Around 0:40, he asks why China, unlike the U.S., is developing 2x sixth-generation fighters instead of 1x. Has he forgotten about the F/A-XX?
2. Around 2:30, he suggests that China may be flying two competing demonstrators. Putting aside the fact that the J-36 and the J-XX are very different aircraft, each designed for different tasks, which is something Bronk himself acknowledges at the beginning of that segment, the weight of evidence suggests that the aircraft currently flying are prototypes, not technology demonstrators - and at least in the case of the J-36, some evidence points to the flight of a TD ca. 2021.
In fairness, he then spends a lot of time shooting down that idea, suggesting that China may well be developing two distinct sixth-gens in parallel... Because they're communists? Is the U.S. also communist for developing both the F-47 and the F/A-XX?
I'm quite baffled. It's now a tradition for CAC and SAC to each develop 1x fighter of each generation with a different mission profile to the other, namely:
- 4th gen: CAC's medium-weight, single-engined, multirole J-10 VS SAC's heavy-weight, long-range, twin-engined J-11/15/16
- 5th gen: CAC's heavy-weight, long-range, A2A-focused J-20 VS SAC's medium-weight, more multirole J-35
- 6th gen: CAC's triple-engined 'air cruiser' J-36 VS SAC's smaller, twin-engined, 'classic fighter' J-XX
I think someone mentioned something similar earlier, but one thing a professor of mine in med school once told me that "to specialize is to know more and more about less and less until you know absolutely everything about nothing at all." In watching some of Bronk's videos I find him to be a pretty intelligent fellow with logical takes. When he ventures out of his area of expertise, of course the accuracy of his statements will suffer, so it's a good thing that he both recognizes that and states it as well.
When the interviewer asks him questions about the PLA, of course he'll give his take, but I think he does a good job of both emphasizing that he doesn't really know and that there are others like Joe and Andreas who know better than he does.
BTW does anyone have that picture of the plaque outside an institute stating that they designed something like 5 out of the 7 6th gen tech demonstrators?
When the interviewer asks him questions about the PLA, of course he'll give his take, but I think he does a good job of both emphasizing that he doesn't really know and that there are others like Joe and Andreas who know better than he does.
BTW does anyone have that picture of the plaque outside an institute stating that they designed something like 5 out of the 7 6th gen tech demonstrators?
Upload it to youtube! Then you can share the link
