J-20 5th Gen Fighter Thread VIII

[Blitzo]

The year is 2083. China is test flying the world's first 9th generation fighter. Rumors indicate that the prototype uses WS-10Y engines...

Maybe I'm on the copium, but there's a way to reconcile this. It could be true that the WS-15 entered LRIP in 2023 and the first batch of J-20A will use WS-10Cs. If CAC switches over all J-20 production to the A variant, then that's more than 100 airframes per year (perhaps up to 120), meaning 200-240 engines, not including spares. Production of the WS-15 might not have reached sufficient mass to supply that many engines, so we'll have to wait a while for the ramp up and inventory to be stocked.

This is what he actually said just 2 days ago.

View attachment 154145



"Not in a rush" my ar$e.

Shame the AECC to hell. What an effing disappointment.

Ah, we're cooked after all

Man I'm getting tired of the WS-10 family c*ckblocking every good thing. Not good enough to be on J-15Ts, but good enough to be on J-20A to flip us a big middle finger. What's this BS man...
View attachment 154146

Personally I am surprised that people are surprised at this.

Back when J-20A had its first prototype fly, it was powered by WS-10s, which meant that the idea of J-20A being powered by "non-WS-15" engines should have always been on the cards, in any sort of capacity.


As I've posted for many years, for PLA engine matters, it is prudent to always assume the less "advanced" possibility is the default, whether it's for J-20A with WS-15s, J-35s with WS-19s, J-15s with WS-10s (or in the past, J-20s with WS-10s, J-10s and SAC Flankers with WS-10s, Y-20B with WS-20s), until such a point that any possibility of the "less advanced" possibility is fully wiped off.

I personally rate 2-3 years of sustained production of having exclusively the "more advanced" engine option as the minimal threshold to wipe the assumption of the "less advanced" possibility away.


I am more annoyed that people who are over enthusiastic have not held the above belief at the forefront of their minds. It has been consistent that the PLA is conservative with regards to engines and would prefer to have a new airframe with interim engines be introduced rather than have no new aircraft at all.
I've been telling people for the last few years to chill a little bit and to write less confidently and to have more qualifiers and caution, because we've played these games before.

People should calibrate their enthusiasm for engines and appropriately have a threshold for what constitutes "confirmation".

 

[latenlazy]

Personally I am surprised that people are surprised at this.

Back when J-20A had its first prototype fly, it was powered by WS-10s, which meant that the idea of J-20A being powered by "non-WS-15" engines should have always been on the cards, in any sort of capacity.


As I've posted for many years, for PLA engine matters, it is prudent to always assume the less "advanced" possibility is the default, whether it's for J-20A with WS-15s, J-35s with WS-19s, J-15s with WS-10s (or in the past, J-20s with WS-10s, J-10s and SAC Flankers with WS-10s, Y-20B with WS-20s), until such a point that any possibility of the "less advanced" possibility is fully wiped off.

I personally rate 2-3 years of sustained production of having exclusively the "more advanced" engine option as the minimal threshold to wipe the assumption of the "less advanced" possibility away.


I am more annoyed that people who are over enthusiastic have not held the above belief at the forefront of their minds. It has been consistent that the PLA is conservative with regards to engines and would prefer to have a new airframe with interim engines be introduced rather than have no new aircraft at all.
I've been telling people for the last few years to chill a little bit and to write less confidently and to have more qualifiers and caution, because we've played these games before.

People should calibrate their enthusiasm for engines and appropriately have a threshold for what constitutes "confirmation".

My general view here is simply that the engine industry can be much much further along than the conservative view would present and setbacks can also still be normal. The point of emphasis for me is that a setback in 2025 will not mimic the same difficulties or timelines as a setback in 2010. Given the resources, skills, and knowledge base to deal with them today vs back then supply chain hiccups simply don’t imply the same kind of impediment as before. Rapid industrial growth will always uncover a few unexpected problems, especially if you’re introducing new suppliers. This level of production capacity for this level of this technology category is still new for the country. Some more growing pains are fine. This amount is nothing as bad as the situation a decade and an half ago.

 

[Blitzo]

My general view here is simply that the engine industry can be much much further along than the conservative view would present and setbacks can also still be normal. The point of emphasis for me is that a setback in 2025 will not mimic the same difficulties or timelines as a setback in 2010. Given the resources, skills, and knowledge base to deal with them today vs back then supply chain hiccups simply don’t imply the same kind of impediment as before. Rapid industrial growth will always uncover a few unexpected problems, especially if you’re introducing new suppliers. This level of production capacity for this level of this technology category is still new for the country. Some more growing pains are fine. This amount is nothing as bad as the situation a decade and an half ago.

I don't particularly have any opinion about the maturity of the engine industry -- that is to say, engine industry capability is not directly proportional with whether "expectant engine XYZ is installed on ABC aircraft".

This is more of a reflection that people just need to stop trying to infer things about the engine industry, and more importantly to calibrate their expectations appropriately for what should be reasonable for "new engines on a given aircraft ".


In the case of J-20A with WS-15 for example, once we have 2-3 years of sustained, exclusive WS-15 powered J-20A production, then people can probably celebrate and start boasting or chest beating and calling it a milestone if they really want to. Until then, they should know their place.

Better yet, just approach the whole enterprise without any emotion at all.

 

[Tomboy]

Is this WS-15 or WS-10C

 

[antiterror13]

I would recommend that people here read the recent posts by I_H8_Y8s on Reddit to get an understanding of where the Chinese aerospace industry is today. In short, China's technical capability has reached the global leading edge; what's missing is scale. The capacity to produce these advanced engines in numbers that match or exceed the US isn't there yet. This is being worked on.

There is no indication that there's a problem with the WS-15 or that it's been delayed and we shouldn't assume there are design flaws until we get some evidence. What we're seeing now is a consequence of the airframe already being in FRP and the engine just having entered LRIP essentially yesterday. There just aren't enough powerplants to equip the airframes coming off the production line.

Given this reality, the PLAAF has the following options:

1. Delay entry of the J-20A until the WS-15 is ready in sufficient numbers.
2. Have some J-20As use WS-10Cs and others use the available WS-15s.
3. Make the first batch of J-20A entirely with WS-10C until production of the WS-15 is high enough.

1 is out of the question. Every indication we have - and this is clear in the Y8s posts - that the PLAAF wants as many 5th generation fighters as it can get its hands on. This is why the PLAAF has started acquiring J-35As. There is no conceivable scenario in which the PLAAF will turn down the improvements offered by the J-20A because the ideal engine isn't ready in large enough numbers.

The difference between 2 and 3 comes down to production efficiency and logistics. Mixing batches like this will introduce frictions and might lower overall production numbers, once again something the PLAAF won't tolerate. In any case, the rumor we have is consistent with both scenarios, but 3 is more likely because the PLAAF's priority is growing its 5th gen fleet as fast as possible, which means minimizing complications.

The question is whether the J-20A with WS-10C can be upgraded with WS-15 .. or it is unnecessary ?

 

[Deino]

View attachment 154246
Is this WS-15 or WS-10C

I think NONE of the two recent sightings of J-20A are clear enough to identify thee engine.

 

[ACuriousPLAFan]

Four J-20s lead by a J-16D in a formation flight.

 

[Mearex]

J-36/J-50/May 7th 6:0 turned you guys into spoiled brats. Not even a little bit of bad news is acceptable WTF… Engine has traditionally been a weakness for China and this isn’t as if they can’t be retrofitted onto J-20A once things have stabilized.

Because the j-36 and j-XDS will not be as capable as its potential without ws-15 engines or better. Engines are the foundation for everything, more important than 6 gen airframes imo. Thats why we are so upset that the ws-15, much less the rumored next gen vce is being delayed, again

 

[tamsen_ikard]

Is Su-57 larger than the J-20 and thus have more range? I recently saw some size comparisons between the two and SU-57 seem much larger, which means it should have more fuel stoage.

 

[Alfa_Particle]

Is Su-57 larger than the J-20 and thus have more range? I recently saw some size comparisons between the two and SU-57 seem much larger, which means it should have more fuel stoage.

Fuel volume itself does not dictate range. Fuel fraction, L/D and T/W ratios, fuel efficiency of the engines, etc. are much more relevant factors.