Chinese Engine Development

Deino said:

You simply don't get it !???

Having a reliable engine for a heavy twin-seat fighter does not mean to have a reliable engine for a single seat fighter, especially if You consider that there are many other factors which could cause the delay in serial production as well: What about if the avionics were not ready (or is there a conspiration again that the radar supplier plays tricks with CAC ?), what if the PLAAF requested a higher thrust version of the WS-10B and not the same level as the WS-10A for the Flanker delivers, what if there are issues related to the relocation of the gearbox + +++ ...

honestly I can tell You many reasons which would equally justify that delay and which could all explain that without "political issues" (which You can't proof either since they are also only rumours ...) and IMO these are much more likely.

As such PLEASE don not refrain this stupid - more than stupid - story again and again whenever You see the word J-10B in this forum.

Deino

Click to expand...

And to add on to what Deino had mentioned... while looking at the thing past technical aspect only... should we explore the marketing and economic arena here.

CAC would not be getting the WS-10A free from SAC or Shenyang Liming if you will. They will be paying for the engine. And if there is something I missed, selling components could be more profitable than selling the entire finished products sometime... in fact lots of time. And if SAC had WS-10A readily available, I don't see the reason they do not want to sell these product to CAC...

If I am the 'corrupted' SAC head, I would start pulling strings with the AVIC, the PLAAF, the CPC, the whatever people to secure sales of my engines to CAC and prevent them from getting the engines from the Russian... that way, for every aircraft built and sold to the PLAAF, PLAN, etc, I make money too. So the more aircraft being built, CAC needed more of my engines and that way, I earn money from there too.

yeah that is what normal sane businessman would do... rather than trying to drag my feet and prevent my engine from going to CAC, while I have abundants of them laying in my warehouse waiting to rot.

Yeah... unless someone had a few screws lose up in their brain, I don't see the rationale in delaying shipment and stuff to a willing buyer.

and one more thing, every new prototypes are first seen tested with AL-31 first then after that the WS-10,
so like while a few J-15 airframe is spotted with WS-10s, the very first one was flying with AL-31s, remember 2009?

rhino123 said:

And to add on to what Deino had mentioned... while looking at the thing past technical aspect only... should we explore the marketing and economic arena here.

CAC would not be getting the WS-10A free from SAC or Shenyang Liming if you will. They will be paying for the engine. And if there is something I missed, selling components could be more profitable than selling the entire finished products sometime... in fact lots of time. And if SAC had WS-10A readily available, I don't see the reason they do not want to sell these product to CAC...

If I am the 'corrupted' SAC head, I would start pulling strings with the AVIC, the PLAAF, the CPC, the whatever people to secure sales of my engines to CAC and prevent them from getting the engines from the Russian... that way, for every aircraft built and sold to the PLAAF, PLAN, etc, I make money too. So the more aircraft being built, CAC needed more of my engines and that way, I earn money from there too.

yeah that is what normal sane businessman would do... rather than trying to drag my feet and prevent my engine from going to CAC, while I have abundants of them laying in my warehouse waiting to rot.

Yeah... unless someone had a few screws lose up in their brain, I don't see the rationale in delaying shipment and stuff to a willing buyer.

Click to expand...

Well, one could make an argument that with only one guaranteed customer (the PLA) from where all the money is coming from there is in fact perverse incentive to sabotage competition. That alone however does not make the sabotage scenario any more plausible.

MiG-29 said:

My purpose is not believe you, you are not the source of the news, i want to see the link, and who is saying what, is he a SAC director?
I do not want to see your opinion, i want to see an official version of the event an offical party like the link i supplied you by Sukhoi.

If you present me that then you gain my trust otherwise pretty much the fact you do not present me hard data does not make you win my trust about such information.

i know russian links and i know what they say about J-11B.

In fact i usually watch and read Russian sources such as this that reports the Visit of the Russian Defence Minister to China and the translation of his Chinese counterpart, in fact if you understand Russian you will see why i do not agree with many things people say here

I want you to prove your point first with official information, if you can not provide it then sorry, i do not need to believe you.

Click to expand...

Well you've been here long enough to know that China doesn't disclose those kind of information publically so continuing demanding such thing is childish. No official confirmation from China (or other classified projects around the world) doesn't mean they don't exist, by your standard the J20 doesn't exist neither because you cannot find any official statement by CAC about its existence. It's been proven time and time again that things said by people here are more accurate than the so called "official" Russian sources you read. Probably it's time to read posts here with an open mind, and accept that most Russian reporting are unreliable.

hmmwv said:

Well you've been here long enough to know that China doesn't disclose those kind of information publically so continuing demanding such thing is childish. No official confirmation from China (or other classified projects around the world) doesn't mean they don't exist, by your standard the J20 doesn't exist neither because you cannot find any official statement by CAC about its existence. It's been proven time and time again that things said by people here are more accurate than the so called "official" Russian sources you read. Probably it's time to read posts here with an open mind, and accept that most Russian reporting are unreliable.

Click to expand...

Incorrect.
When Russian official sites report sales such as the information is official, however in this forum when Russian sources contradict most of the predictions or theories sustain here, people start saying saying Russian sources are unreliable.


In reality official Russian sources are very careful in what they publish, first because they won`t publish information their customers do not allow them to disclose.

So pretty much the only reason you say Russian sources are unrealiable has more to do with an autodefence reaction than with accurate information.

Why? simple, Russia knows what China buys from Russian companies.

latenlazy said:

The measure of good information isn't what is official, but what is right. Russian sources have proven to be less reliable than leaks from Chinese forums.

Click to expand...

Not when the information realeased is official as the Visit of the Russian Defence minister and the translation of what his Chinese collegue says, that TV report has more weight than what you even attribute simply because they are reporting an official event.

MiG-29 said:

Incorrect.
When Russian official sites report sales such as

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

the information is official, however in this forum when Russian sources contradict most of the predictions or theories sustain here, people start saying saying Russian sources are unreliable.


In reality official Russian sources are very careful in what they publish, first because they won`t publish information their customers do not allow them to disclose.

So pretty much the only reason you say Russian sources are unrealiable has more to do with an autodefence reaction than with accurate information.

Why? simple, Russia knows what China buys from Russian companies.

Click to expand...

No, you just live in your own imaginary world, an alternate universe version of Chinese military developments

Deino said:

Having a reliable engine for a heavy twin-seat fighter does not mean to have a reliable engine for a single seat fighter, especially if You consider that there are many other factors which could cause the delay in serial production as well: What about if the avionics were not ready (or is there a conspiration again that the radar supplier plays tricks with CAC ?), what if the PLAAF requested a higher thrust version of the WS-10B and not the same level as the WS-10A for the Flanker delivers, what if there are issues related to the relocation of the gearbox + +++ ...

honestly I can tell You many reasons which would equally justify that delay and which could all explain that without "political issues" (which You can't proof either since they are also only rumours ...) and IMO these are much more likely.

As such PLEASE don not refrain this stupid - more than stupid - story again and again whenever You see the word J-10B in this forum.

Deino

Click to expand...

Stop using insulting word, Deino. As a moderator, I thought you can do better than this. There are many doubts you all could not answer and just use opinion to try pin down my point..

You say J-10B is actually waiting for WS-10B? Then its even more absurd that pre production J-10b will go for AL-31FN which offer lesser thrust than WS-10A and worst its a foreign product. PLAAF always desire for all domestic products.

If you talk about not enought WS-10A then its funny every single new SAC flanker of J-16, J-15 and J-15S are fitted with WS-10A and no more AL-31F. Can't SAC or Liming sacriface a few flanker to save J-10b? Do away with 5 flanker will save 10 J-10B.. Isn't that difficult? I think its more of a political decision that shortage.

As for reliability of WS-10A , there is no indication WS-10A is not reliable enough for a single engine plane like J-10 as demonstrated by J-10B pt 1034. Plus maturity of WS-10A shall put to rest with J-16 and J-15S performing dangerous initial flight test using WS-10A. WS-10A is so reliable that it can put to dangerous initial flight test of prototype and do away of the usual standard of using AL-31F.

Let me remind you all, J-10B has probably drop into a second tier product, losing the importance to J-20 and J-15/J-15S. It will not have a high priority and therefore subjected to manipulation and political decision is possible.

latenlazy said:

Well, one could make an argument that with only one guaranteed customer (the PLA) from where all the money is coming from there is in fact perverse incentive to sabotage competition. That alone however does not make the sabotage scenario any more plausible.

Click to expand...

No... I do not agree with you here. From the point of view of a business, be it state owned or independent, SAC and CAC had their own profit or lost to keep track in. So if PLA is coming up with x amount of money to buy weapons developed from either the SAC or the CAC, this amount of money will not increase or decrease. And since the choice had already been made to go with CAC's J-10B, there is little sense to withhold the engines so that CAC will have to get engines from the Russian, which mean part of the x amount of money will flow to the Russian.

If I was the head of the SAC, I will definitely make sure that this don't happen unless there are other circumstances involved like, I do not have enough WS-10A to supply to both J-10 and J-11 production. I would rather that some of the x-amount of money that PLA is giving CAC to flow into my profit then not to get anything at all... and who knows, selling engines might even be more profitable than selling entire aircraft system.

rhino123 said:

And to add on to what Deino had mentioned... while looking at the thing past technical aspect only... should we explore the marketing and economic arena here.

CAC would not be getting the WS-10A free from SAC or Shenyang Liming if you will. They will be paying for the engine. And if there is something I missed, selling components could be more profitable than selling the entire finished products sometime... in fact lots of time. And if SAC had WS-10A readily available, I don't see the reason they do not want to sell these product to CAC...

If I am the 'corrupted' SAC head, I would start pulling strings with the AVIC, the PLAAF, the CPC, the whatever people to secure sales of my engines to CAC and prevent them from getting the engines from the Russian... that way, for every aircraft built and sold to the PLAAF, PLAN, etc, I make money too. So the more aircraft being built, CAC needed more of my engines and that way, I earn money from there too.

yeah that is what normal sane businessman would do... rather than trying to drag my feet and prevent my engine from going to CAC, while I have abundants of them laying in my warehouse waiting to rot.

Yeah... unless someone had a few screws lose up in their brain, I don't see the rationale in delaying shipment and stuff to a willing buyer.

Click to expand...

SAC final aim is to sell more J-16 to replace the original unit J-10B intend to replace. Therefore making more money, making more presence in PLAAF and maintain their stronghold in PLAAF. J-16 is capable of air superiority, ground strike and probably equipped with more powerful AESA due to the bigger radome and grey painted radome(indicated AESA radar). With engine shut off from J-10B or delay, PLAAF might shift to J-16. Because PLAAF do not like to rely on foreign source for their military. They like everything domestic if possible. They are very paranoid after 1989 western embargo on them. J-10B with AL-31FN engine, offer inferior thrust compared to WS-10A and non domestic sources. PLAAF might still order J-10b with AL-31FN engine but it will be lesser than original intended and instead will buy more J-16 or J-11B.

Selling engine to rival and let rival has a bigger presence and increase their importance in PLAAF is a suicide move in SAC opinion. SAC already lose 5th gen competition, they wouldn't want to lose this 4th/4.5th fighter position too.

Finally, with reliable informer of a recent engine summit conduct in China. WS-15 has change from SAC WS-15 to Xi'an WS-15. More or less comfirm the behind scene fighting that Chengdu managed to get engine maker change for their J-20 so as to prevent conflict of interest.