It's closer to 5-10 years.
J-20 5th Gen Fighter Thread VIII
- Thread starter Blitzo
- Start date
Not necessarily. When the WS-10 was having trouble at introduction it only needed to fill production for 24 J-11B a year. The WS-15 needs to meet production for maybe ~80-100 J-20As a year. It’s entirely reasonable to resort to a fallback option for only a short while if the alternative is forgoing 40-50 fighters in the next calendar year (based on the suggestion that they are in fact still employing the WS-15 on a maybe 50/50 basis), or even 80-100 fighters (if they’re pushing adoption back for a full year). The first J-20A prototype used WS-10s so it seems they were already developing the J-20A with a fallback hedge in mind. If such an option were already developed and means the difference of 50-100 airframes in the immediate calendar why not use it even if it’s for a short while?
Ws-10c2, even by nozzle alone, is a independent engine with independent development cycle and supply chain. It's one hell of a "fallback option".
Fallback option for temporary problems is normal WS-10. Here it's a fully established competitor engine, which makes sense only and exclusively if WS-15 can't be relied on to come soon enough.
this is a very bold claim.
when nobody knows the exact details about this new variant. not even highly reliable PLA inside source like Cute orca and soyo. neither we know is it really a WS-10 variant or could be WS-15 with new nozzles.
but this is likely to be in the line of WS-10 family with new materials and manufacturing process.
Not sure how it’s “one hell of a fallback” when they started J-20A development with WS-10s and the development cycle is for a rev on an already mature engine that prior J-20 versions were already using. You’re dramatically overstating how much effort and risk the fallback option requires.
The below was the actual potential upgrade path. The F110 engine core should be capable of more growth than where its development stopped at.
“Even though the F110 is one of the highest thrust fighter engines in operation, GE has developed plans for further performance increases, should our customers need them. We have defined three growth steps that could increase F110 thrust to more than 40,000 pounds (178 kilo- Newtons ). The first step would deliver a 15 to 20 percent thrust increase to about 33,000 to 35,000 pounds (156 kilo- Newtons ). Engine ratings will depend on customer requirements. As an alternative, this step could provide a 40 percent increase in engine parts life at current thrust levels. Development work is already underway, and the engine will be qualified in 1998. Hardware modifications would include the high efficiency three stage integrally bladed disk - or blisk - fan adapted from the F118 engine on the B-2 bomber. We would also apply an advanced augmentor design using air-cooled radial flameholder and spraybar assemblies adopted from the YF120 and F414 engines. This low cost derivative design will greatly extend flameholder life. Survivability features could be incorporated to reduce engine thermal and radar signatures.”
Nozzle is significant part of jet engine maintenance in the first place, and is certainly a major change of a highly stressed part.
Even if everything else is same, which is not obvious. We shouldn't underestimate what we see, it's a major work. If someone sees such nozzle as "lesser" just because it "isn't rectangular" - he's wrong.
Moreover, given the nature of those jets(and modern air combat tactics in general) - solving ws-10 signature may be one of the major leaves ws-15 w/o one of the most major(3rd, maybe second even) reasons d'etre in the first place.
They changed the nozzle for the J-16’s WS-10 variant from an ejector to a con-di design and it wasn’t that big a deal. All engineering revisions are “major work”. That doesn’t mean they’re such a huge and costly lift that it would be unreasonable to employ them only as an interim solution. When you need quick lower cost answers version upgrades on mature designs are popular precisely because they’re relatively easier. You may even already have off the shelf solutions from your R&D pipeline *because* the design is mature and has had a long history of development support. It’s not like the WS-10 product tree froze the moment it entered mass production. You’re trying to make a very big deal out of the engineering option with the lowest burden of work for an industry that is not lean on engineering resources (they even developed a 2D TVC nozzle they put on display that they have never used for any production design).
Last edited:
Why not, it train engineers, give other options and they have the time and money to do it. J-20 is an awesome testbed for technology and engine, they have clearly made the airframe friendly to modification with the number of components swap we see and variants. They have probably tested multiple ram and paint too. Its a jumping board for what to come.
Last edited: