Chinese Engine Development

Lion said:

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.

Click to expand...

i am quiet ignorant about WS-10 i have one question how do you know the number of Flankers fitted with WS-10s are operational.

My second opinion is if WS-10 is reliable for Su-27s, it should be reliable for J-10s in the same way Al-31 is for Su-27s and J-10, RD-33 is for MiG-29 and JF-17, F-100 was for F-16 and F-15, F404 for Gripen and F-18.
a reliable engine is reliable for twin or single engine fighters


In my personal opinion, i think Russia has signed an agreement with China legalizing Su-27 variants in exchange of something, probably spares and engines for already delivered Su-27 and chinese variants of Su-27s as Sukhoi already says, probably delivery of aircraft and engines for other programs, this is my guess.

I guess J-11B and J-15 might be legal now under some conditions Russia and China must have cometh to an agreement.

The other possibility is J-11Bs have some troubles requiring Sukhoi`s direct help since already the spare parts and engines and ws-10 is not reliable enough.

Any way hard to tell what agreement and conditions Russia and China signed, only time will tell, if in 2-3 years J-11Bs are build without any complaign from Russia and even with WS-10s, that will mean Sukhoi agrees.

If Al-31s purchases continue means in reality WS-10s has real reliability problems, but i kind of doubt WS-10s is that unreliable, but that can only be proven by more large purchases of Al-31s.

All of of this will be proven by what Sukhoi says in the future about J-11B and subsequent variants and how many Al-31s are bought in the next 5 years

Lion said:

Since you agree, there is no doubt WS-10A is a mature engine. Not fitting it on pre production of J-10b is a matter of choice than rather a matter of safety or reliability. The choice is due to political play.

Click to expand...

I don't think I have the expertise to agree or to disagree on matters like this. I was only going with the premise set up by you. I apologize if I didn't make myself clear, but what I meant was "IF the engine was mature, then the boss at SAC would have no choice but to ship it to CAC." Of course, whether or not the engine was mature would have to be decided by Beijing. No matter what it actually is, Beijing still does not think WS-10A would FIT J-10B/J-20, etc.

I have heard plenty of discussion pertaining to WS-10, as it is suppose to be the power-plant for J-10A, J-10B, J-11B, J-16 & J-15. But what I have not heard a squeak about, is the WS-13 Taishan engine. I know this thread is dedicated to the WS-10 Taihang engine, but since I closely monitor the progress of CAC-PAC JF-17 Thunder, I would really like to know where does the progress of the WS-13 engine stand.

Also, as observed by the recent posts, I understand that SAC owns the WS-10 engine's development, yes? If so, then I believe the Chinese government ought set out a law which establishes fair competition and trade dealings between different major Chinese Military Corporations. Ultimately, whoever builds combat aircraft for China, must be subject to adhering to the principle that whatever they build, jointly or independently, should primarily and ultimately, of benefit to China first and foremost.

Dizasta1 said:

I have heard plenty of discussion pertaining to WS-10, as it is suppose to be the power-plant for J-10A, J-10B, J-11B, J-16 & J-15. But what I have not heard a squeak about, is the WS-13 Taishan engine. I know this thread is dedicated to the WS-10 Taihang engine, but since I closely monitor the progress of CAC-PAC JF-17 Thunder, I would really like to know where does the progress of the WS-13 engine stand.

Also, as observed by the recent posts, I understand that SAC owns the WS-10 engine's development, yes? If so, then I believe the Chinese government ought set out a law which establishes fair competition and trade dealings between different major Chinese Military Corporations. Ultimately, whoever builds combat aircraft for China, must be subject to adhering to the principle that whatever they build, jointly or independently, should primarily and ultimately, of benefit to China first and foremost.

Click to expand...

no, it's for all engines. The title just says WS-10A, but we can talk about any engine here.

I haven't seen much updates recently on WS-13. My guess is that it's probably a couple of years away from mass production, but I don't even recall seeing a JF-17 fitted with WS-13. On top of WS-13 engine, we also have the other engine of about the same weight class but has 9500 kn thrust.

MiG-29 said:

i am quiet ignorant about WS-10 i have one question how do you know the number of Flankers fitted with WS-10s are operational.

Click to expand...

Poor grammar, hard to understand exactly what you are asking. I'm thinking two possible meanings; one, you're asking the amount of operational Flankers currently using WS-10A engines, two, you're asking how we know that WS-10A equipped Flankers are operational.

If the first one is correct then you can view the Flanker thread, post 2886 from Asif. If the latter is correct then I can tell you there are numerous concrete proofs, both official and non-official documenting the J-11B's service in the PLA.

If Al-31s purchases continue means in reality WS-10s has real reliability problems, but i kind of doubt WS-10s is that unreliable, but that can only be proven by more large purchases of Al-31s.

Click to expand...

New J-11B's have WS-10A's, this J-15 has WS-10A's. If the WS-10A is able to be used on new production J-11B's (and for quite some time now) then the WS-10A does not have "real reliability problems and further purchases of AL-31's would be due to other factors such as WS-10A production capacity, political considerations and economic considerations but NOT reliability issues. As many members have tried to tell you in the past (to no avail), the AL-31 purchases are for replacing worn out AL-31's with only a small, almost negligible amount of AL-31's being installed on prototypes for testing purposes.

The latest AL-31 engine orders are for both the J-10As and the flankers. The numbers for the flankers are too small to be for purposes other than for maintenance and replacement of old engines.

First of all I need – I want – to apologise ! My harsh words this morning were not meant to offend You or even as an aggression as You in person ! To admit I had a loooong night with not enough sleep … as such I’m sorry, but:

Lion said:

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.

Click to expand...

I also have to admit that I can’t hear these repeated issues about political corruption, and so on and as such I will resign from this discussion in the same way I can’t persuade MiG-29 with any statement that Russian sources – I won’t even deem them as ones – are reliable, at least most of them.

Anyway I’m even more angry since – and that will (promised) my last contribution to this discussion, Yourself mix several things, pick out only the things You want to hear and everything else not. Just an example:

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.

Click to expand...

It is not # 1034 powered by the WS-10, it is # 1035 … it uses a WS-10B and not a WS-10A. That might only be a small wrong letter, but it is as wrong as to state that the J-10 is powered by an AL-31F. Fact is that both fighters need completely different arrangements for the gearbox and necessary other related parts – the AL-31F and WS-10A on top whereas the AL-31FN and WS-10B on the bottom !

As such the J-10B uses NEVER a WS-10A, it simply can not ! …. and that was my point, or argument which is strangely completely ignored by You: let us assume the WS-10B in its current for is reliable – at least for a prototype – that does not mean that this type of engine is reliable enough for serial production, it still could mean that it delivers enough thrust for the prototype tests, but maybe the PLAAF wants more for a serial version … maybe the power output on electricity is not enough for the desired AESA …. Maybe, maybe, maybe … as such I could continue several other reasons and none of them are related to playing tricks.

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.

Click to expand...

As noted above and again a point You usually ignore or at least don’t want to respond to:

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.

Click to expand...

I never said that the WS-10A is not reliable enough for the Flanker and surely not even for the J-15S and J-16 prototypes, BUT these are still twin-engined types and as such You still have a safety margin if one engines has problems, something You won’t risk in a single engined type – except for a prototype but I'm even sure that the WS-10B is in fact mature/reliable enough ... it is therefore - at least IMO - simply related to WS-10A/B production capacity or other reasons like explained above and surely - as also explained by several others here ! - due to SAC's unwilling to deliver this engine.

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.

Click to expand...

Agreed that could be, but again and finally… that’s Your opinion and I completely disagree … but time will tell us who is correct.

Deino

So what's the difference between WS-10/WS-10A/WS-10B? Does WS-10B have thrust vectoring?

Also if indeed WS-10B is powering 1035 J10B then WS engine is way ahead in its development than we first thought

That means a prototype single engined aircraft is using a very advanced Chinese engine which says a lot about WS10B and its reliability

However I would not be suprised since WS10/WS10A has powered 4 Regiments of J11B for years now

In addition isn't 2001 J20 powered by a variant of the WS10?

tphuang said:

no, it's for all engines. The title just says WS-10A, but we can talk about any engine here.

I haven't seen much updates recently on WS-13. My guess is that it's probably a couple of years away from mass production, but I don't even recall seeing a JF-17 fitted with WS-13. On top of WS-13 engine, we also have the other engine of about the same weight class but has 9500 kn thrust.

Click to expand...

Would it be safe to say that the WS-13 is intended for the JF-17 Thunder? I remember that a few months back, there was talk of JF-17 prototype-06, fitted with a Chinese engine, perhaps the WS-13, doing taxi trials. Is there any truth to this? If so, are there any pictures or videos available to verify this?

Also, is it true that the WS-13s are designed with superior performance, maintenance-wise more advance and easier to handle and would have a longer lifespan b/w servicing?

Lastly, the WS-13 Taishan is being produced by Xian Corp or someone else?

I think I have read some where the Al-31 was modified was regard to its gear box to fit the J-10 is that true? Also I think PLAAF have the foresight to fit Ws-10 in all prototype aircraft so that when large amounts of Ws-10 become available they can easily modify all the fighters to fit with Ws-10.