He's right again Blitzo, he gave you a great answer, and there you go, you are almost as argumentative as that obnoxious AFB.
He did give an answer, however I think my subsequent questions were also relevant to the thread -- I was interested in further details for the sake of healthy discussion, especially around the parameters for navalizing engines and whether that has existed or not for Al-31F. He and I have since discussed some of our differences and I'm willing to let whatever supposed issue there is slide.
--------------------
Back on topic: on the subject of navalized engines, the obvious situation with J-15s is that current production J-15s use Al-31F engines, and will be expected to use a WS-10 variant in due time. This isn't a matter of contention.
However, that consensus does raise a few questions, because the Al-31F is not a navalized engine, and we have no evidence that China imported navalized Al-31F3 variants (used on the Su-33) for use on their J-15s.
Thus, the question which I believe is worth asking, is that if the Navy is using standard
non navalized Al-31Fs on their current J-15s, when what is it about standard
non navalized WS-10s that prohibits them from powering current J-15s as well? That is, if J-15s are waiting for a navalized WS-10 variant, why could they not use non navalized WS-10s as a current stop gap instead of non navalized Al-31Fs?
For instance, are standard, non navalized Al-31Fs simply naturally more corrosion resistant than non navalized WS-10s, and/or are there some other characteristics at play which makes non navalized Al-31Fs more suitable for J-15s than non navalized WS-10s?
I'd be interested in any hypotheses which anyone could offer.
At present I'm sitting on three possible answers:
1: China did import Al-31F3s and are using them on J-15s, but we simply didn't hear about it. Probably unlikely, but still possible.
2: there are certain characteristics about the non navalized Al-31F which make it more suitable for use aboard J-15s than non navalized WS-10s, such as possibly being more corrosive resistant by design or something of the sort.
3: there is no appreciable difference between the non navalized Al-31F and non navalized WS-10 in actual performance, but the Al-31F has more far cumulative flight hours across hundreds of aircraft around in service around the world for decades, and are/were still demonstrably "lower risk" than WS-10s which had far less flight hours -- so the Navy chose Al-31Fs as the lower risk option as their stop gap.
