J-15 carrier fighter thread

[Blitzo]

Years back the speculation was that WS-10 had poor throttle response time, relevant for carrier landing scenarios that involve transitioning from low throttle approach to max throttle on touchdown so that, in the event that the aircraft misses all arrestor wires, it can subsequently recover and go around rather than running off the deck and into the sea. Perhaps this shortfall has yet to be resolved.

That was originally from like over a decade ago now. I'm not sure if it has any relevance to the last couple of years.

It is interesting to contemplate what other technical characteristics might impinge on suitability for carrier applications but be of lesser importance for land-based applications. Resistant to saltwater corrosion? Stability and granularity of response at low throttle settings? Resistance to foreign object damage and associated ease of maintainability and repair given limited onboard facilities? Mechanical durability characteristics associated with high dynamic loads experienced in both catapult take-off and arrested recovery?

From memory, about a year ago the usual trio/grapevine said that WS-10 was satisfactory for implementation aboard the J-15 family, but one of the reasons for continuing to buy Al-31s was to support the Russian aerospace sector, helping Saturn out.
Of course, whether one believes that is another matter, but their track record is what matters.

How the PLAN will go with J-15 family engines in future, who knows.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[Clango]

That was originally from like over a decade ago now. I'm not sure if it has any relevance to the last couple of years.




From memory, about a year ago the usual trio/grapevine said that WS-10 was satisfactory for implementation aboard the J-15 family, but one of the reasons for continuing to buy Al-31s was to support the Russian aerospace sector, helping Saturn out.
Of course, whether one believes that is another matter, but their track record is what matters.

How the PLAN will go with J-15 family engines in future, who knows.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

In regards to this, are we talking still the actual baseline 31F or is this just a stand in for the entire family including substantially upgraded versions of the saturn?

 

[Deino]

In regards to this, are we talking still the actual baseline 31F or is this just a stand in for the entire family including substantially upgraded versions of the saturn?

The old ones

 

[Blitzo]

In regards to this, are we talking still the actual baseline 31F or is this just a stand in for the entire family including substantially upgraded versions of the saturn?

I'm not sure I understand your question.

I'm talking about the specific Al-31F variant used for J-15 family (which has some maritime mods), which they say the PLA are buying for their J-15 family aircraft to give some industrial welfare for Saturn, but that apparently domestic WS-10 at this point is also fully viable for J-15 family use

 

[Alfa_Particle]

Years back the speculation was that WS-10 had poor throttle response time, relevant for carrier landing scenarios that involve transitioning from low throttle approach to max throttle on touchdown so that, in the event that the aircraft misses all arrestor wires, it can subsequently recover and go around rather than running off the deck and into the sea. Perhaps this shortfall has yet to be resolved.

It is interesting to contemplate what other technical characteristics might impinge on suitability for carrier applications but be of lesser importance for land-based applications. Resistant to saltwater corrosion? Stability and granularity of response at low throttle settings? Resistance to foreign object damage and associated ease of maintainability and repair given limited onboard facilities? Mechanical durability characteristics associated with high dynamic loads experienced in both catapult take-off and arrested recovery?

We've been through this for God knows how many times now. No, that was an issue that affect ONLY the earliest iteration of the WS-10 (and potentially pre-2015 units) before the introduction of contra-rotating turbines.

This is a wildly over-exaggerated myth that needs to die out. The rumour has always been that the WS-10H struggled with CORROSION without compromising thrust. Throttle response was never the problem.

It means exactly that. Because, again, old and outdated engine is preferred no matter what - for J-15T (same generation of electronics as J-20a btw) and J-15TD(Dian of all things).

The only reason to explain it is that WS-10 just doesn't work for practical deck ops. And note, we're talking about carrier air. It's a program where people are working themselves to death on spot - if something can be resolved. This is no forum argument.

Thought train is simple - given than China changes engines to national ones at first opportunity, you're at this point likely calling for a killing blow on entire carrier arm. Which isn't exactly rich when it comes to their unique pilots.

There's no good reason to sit on AL-31FN if there's any suitable alternative whatsoever, and the obvious answer is there's none. You aren't going to be widowed for forum messages, ultimately, nor you're going be the representative guy at funeral. Or explaining to CMC, why one of largest national projects period ran into a wall.

When WS-10(or not 10) will produce a viable marine fighter engine, we'll see it.

The Chinese has a word for your mentality: 二极管. I won't even bother to retort this extreme mindset. It's not worth my time.

From memory, about a year ago the usual trio/grapevine said that WS-10 was satisfactory for implementation aboard the J-15 family, but one of the reasons for continuing to buy Al-31s was to support the Russian aerospace sector, helping Saturn out.
Of course, whether one believes that is another matter, but their track record is what matters.

How the PLAN will go with J-15 family engines in future, who knows.

Oneninety was asked about this months ago and he said:

 

[Gloire_bb]

The Chinese has a word for your mentality: 二极管. I won't even bother to retort this extreme mindset. It's not worth my time.

What can I say, 实事求是 is useful concept in PLA watching. Opposing PLAN technical decisions, on patriotic grounds, on English watcher forum - I wonder.

 

[Lethe]

From memory, about a year ago the usual trio/grapevine said that WS-10 was satisfactory for implementation aboard the J-15 family, but one of the reasons for continuing to buy Al-31s was to support the Russian aerospace sector, helping Saturn out.
Of course, whether one believes that is another matter, but their track record is what matters.

How the PLAN will go with J-15 family engines in future, who knows.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

It seems plausible that PLAN's ongoing use of AL-31F is related to some kind of "grand bargain" settlement regarding Flanker IP, a settlement having other expressions such as PLAN's apparent use of Russian UPAZ-1 air refueling pod. But any such commitment would seem to make sense only if AL-31F is basically satisfactory. It is more difficult to entertain the notion that PLAN would continue to accept an unsatisfactory foreign engine if superior domestic options are available. To be sure, combat aircraft are designed around certain anticipated engine performance parameters, which is one reason why most engine performance upgrades proposed by GE, Rolls Royce, SNECMA, et al. are not actually taken up for full development by customers. The returns on a fixed airframe may not be that compelling (unless the original engine was deficient in the first place). One question is to what extent the amicable pairing between Su-27 and AL-31F still holds true for these latest generation aircraft that have now diverged considerably from their ancestors, particularly for J-15D and DT electronic warfare aircraft that, one assumes, require considerably greater electrical power generation.

 

[Blitzo]

Oneninety was asked about this months ago and he said:
View attachment 170034View attachment 170035

Ultimately the proof will be in the pudding for when/if J-15 family does utilize WS-10s.

It seems plausible that PLAN's ongoing use of AL-31F is related to some kind of "grand bargain" settlement regarding Flanker IP, a settlement having other expressions such as PLAN's apparent use of UPAZ-1 air refueling pod. But any such commitment would seem to make sense only if the AL-31F is basically satisfactory. It is more difficult to entertain the notion that PLAN would continue to accept an unsatisfactory foreign engine if superior domestic options are available. Combat aircraft are designed around certain anticipated engine performance parameters. This is one reason why the number of engine upgrades proposed by GE, Rolls Royce, SNECMA, et al. greatly exceeds those actually taken up for full development by customers. One question is to what extent this assuredly amicable pairing between Su-27 and AL-31F still holds true for these latest generation aircraft that have now diverged considerably from their ancestors, particularly for J-15D and DT electronic warfare aircraft.

Yeah, I think the spectrum for "satisfactory" is different between people tbh.

But in the case of the relationship between Al-31 and WS-10 families, they are somewhat more amenable to re-engining or substitution between each other. And in terms of electrical power generation, it would probably be the genset rather than the engine itself that would be the more prominent rate limiting factor.

 

[latenlazy]

What can I say, 实事求是 is useful concept in PLA watching. Opposing PLAN technical decisions, on patriotic grounds, on English watcher forum - I wonder.

A lot of people who parade that phrase around in China Watcher world aren’t particularly great at the critical self examination part that the phrase implies.

 

[janmichaeldave]

Are they still building the J-15. I remember that they stopped building the J-16 except for the EW variant. Is it the same for the J-15?