Chinese Engine Development

Blackstone said:

I'll refrain from treating you in kind.

WS-10x is substandard, compared to engines like F100-220/220E, F119, and its cousin the F135, due in part to poorer manufacturing capability and process controls, and the inability to sell them internationally is one of the results. Pakistan, for example, would love to have WS-10x for the JF-17, but China's factories can't supply them in sufficient quantities.

Click to expand...

The WS-10 wouldn't even fit into the JF-17. The JF-17 uses a smaller engine class...

Also, we know the WS-10 has had quality issues with production. We don't know whether that's resulted in a down rated performance. It could just as easily be a problem of maintenance and engine life. That said, what we do know is that it's not unusual for there to be production quality issues for a new turbofan of this class. The F100 engine had such issues at the start of its production. Did that make the F100 substandard upon its debut? Personally, I would say no, but if that's the standards you want to impose, you're certainly entitled to your own opinion.

A.Man said:

You are making a fool of yourself. There are people here who know militaries of China as well as the world from the inside out. From what you have said, it is better for you to stay quiet and go back to read articles of this forum from day 1. If you do so, I believe, you will be a better expert than Andrew Erickson.

Click to expand...

Andrew Erickson is a recognized expert on the Chinese military, and he points out both strength and weakness in the PLA(x). so stick to parroting the rest of the peanut gallery.

Blackstone said:

Andrew Erickson is a recognized expert on the Chinese military, and he points out both strength and weakness in the PLA(x). so stick to parroting the rest of the peanut gallery.

Click to expand...

While Erickson is somewhat better than some of his peers (*cough*David Axe*cough*) he will still occasionally get details wrong (the J-20's size). I personally also tend to disagree with his interpretation of the facts at times, which I suspect has to do with the general span of time he attributes his information with. For example, while his article on China's engine problems was generally good on facts, and checks out with what we've been hearing on this forum, a lot of the issues he listed were outdated at the time of the writing of his article by at least a full year. These small differences in fact patterns can result in different conclusions, which is why it's important to follow developments in China's military technology closely, as that continues to be a rapidly moving target.

Overall though, I don't give as much credence to "recognized experts" in the general media. While some are certainly better than others, almost all have a tendency to under as opposed to over estimate on new developments. Keep in mind that while forum goers were convinced of the J-20's revelation at the end of 2010 for at least a full month, many of these experts were largely caught by surprise. I suspect it has in part to do with a basic academic framework that anchors many of their works that don't or have forgotten to consider changes in factors of technological development over the years.

latenlazy said:

While Erickson is somewhat better than some of his peers (*cough*David Axe*cough*) he will still occasionally get details wrong (the J-20's size). I personally also tend to disagree with his interpretation of the facts at times, which I suspect has to do with the general span of time he attributes his information with. For example, while his article on China's engine problems was generally good on facts, and checks out with what we've been hearing on this forum, a lot of the issues he listed were outdated at the time of the writing of his article by at least a full year. These small differences in fact patterns can result in different conclusions, which is why it's important to follow developments in China's military technology closely, as that continues to be a rapidly moving target.

Overall though, I don't give as much credence to "recognized experts" in the general media. While some are certainly better than others, almost all have a tendency to under as opposed to over estimate on new developments. Keep in mind that while forum goers were convinced of the J-20's revelation at the end of 2010 for at least a full month, many of these experts were largely caught by surprise. I suspect it has in part to do with a basic academic framework that anchors many of their works that don't or have forgotten to consider changes in factors of technological development over the years.

Click to expand...

All of us make mistakes and Erickson isn't any different. However, he reviews copious PLA open source publications, and base his analysis on data and available facts. In other words, he call it as he sees it, and that's a good bar to set.

Blackstone said:

All of us make mistakes and Erickson isn't any different. However, he reviews copious PLA open source publications, and base his analysis on data and available facts. In other words, he call it as he sees it, and that's a good bar to set.

Click to expand...

As do many of us, and when fact patterns don't agree, someone is going to be wrong. More times than not, Erickson has been on the shorter end of that stick compared to some of the more seasoned PLA watchers on this forum.

Blackstone said:

All of us make mistakes and Erickson isn't any different. However, he reviews copious PLA open source publications, and base his analysis on data and available facts. In other words, he call it as he sees it, and that's a good bar to set.

Click to expand...

Analysis like him get their information from forums just like this one, and are often few years late. The information you see posted on this forum is closer to the source than articles written by those analysis.

A.Man said:

You are making a fool of yourself. There are people here who know militaries of China as well as the world from the inside out. From what you have said, it is better for you to stay quiet and go back to read articles of this forum from day 1. If you do so, I believe, you will be a better expert than Andrew Erickson.

Click to expand...

There are some who really understand PLA on this forum and CDF who might be able to make a statement in discrediting Andrew Erickson. You are not one of them. You constantly post old photos and hardly ever post any photos with real commentary. Please feel free to raise your quality of posts in the future before talking down on Andrew.

latenlazy said:

As do many of us, and when fact patterns don't agree, someone is going to be wrong. More times than not, Erickson has been on the shorter end of that stick compared to some of the more seasoned PLA watchers on this forum.

Click to expand...

Engineer said:

Analysis like him get their information from forums just like this one, and are often few years late. The information you see posted on this forum is closer to the source than articles written by those analysis.

Click to expand...

Sometimes he gets them wrong, but more or less he looks through Chinese sources and bring out his analysis of them. I will bet that he looks through more Chinese sources than 95% of members on this forum. It's true that he sometimes goes through older sources and is a little behind the times, but I actually prefer that kind of conservative analysis. Too many posters on this forum get excited by new developments and overestimate Chna's progress. How many of us were overly optimistic about WS-10A? I thought this engine was ready for mass production by 2009, but then was dealt a harsh reality on how much work there is in getting everything right. And if you read the "big shrimps" on Chinese forums, they also hold very conservative views on most air force developments compared to the fanboys we have on Chinese forums and here. All of us would be better served by making conservative estimates and being surprised as opposed to overly eager and getting disappointed.

until ws-10 is exported, no real fact existed.

tphuang said:

Sometimes he gets them wrong, but more or less he looks through Chinese sources and bring out his analysis of them. I will bet that he looks through more Chinese sources than 95% of members on this forum. It's true that he sometimes goes through older sources and is a little behind the times, but I actually prefer that kind of conservative analysis. Too many posters on this forum get excited by new developments and overestimate Chna's progress. How many of us were overly optimistic about WS-10A? I thought this engine was ready for mass production by 2009, but then was dealt a harsh reality on how much work there is in getting everything right. And if you read the "big shrimps" on Chinese forums, they also hold very conservative views on most air force developments compared to the fanboys we have on Chinese forums and here. All of us would be better served by making conservative estimates and being surprised as opposed to overly eager and getting disappointed.

Click to expand...

Little disagreement there. I guess my point was that it's not okay to hide behind a name to justify lazy conclusions rather than ding Erickson himself. Big Shrimp are definitely more conservative (and, well, also extremely accurate, obviously) than fanboys, but it's not rare for me to find some Western analysts (especially those who circulate their views in the media) to be too conservative.

True enough, the WS-10A had not been exported... but so have some of the engines from the US and Russian and other European nations. No one would give out their best systems and that is common sense.

As to no real fact... well... do you think that the specifications and datas of those engines (whether export or not going to be export) on any nation are real facts rather than just brochure from their manufacturers? The US media, the Russian media and the Chinese media can spin whatever thing they wanted, the manufacturers can claimed whatever they want (just like I would tell people that my company's product is the best - coupled with loads of technical jargons, and sell that product in the market, and would you really believe what I have claimed?)

There is no point in arguing whether specs found on the internet are accurate or not... and whether Erikson or whoever is correct or not, all we can do at this point is to assume that the data is correct on the WS-10A and carry on with the discussion on technicality of the engine, rather than spitting off flame on an engine, argue if the engine is matured or not (as far as I can see, it was fitted on frontline fighters of the Chinese, so at least the Chinese thinks that they are confident enough for that engine) and whether the engine will be exported or not none of us know... as to why it was not exported now, none of us know and obviously none of us can convince each other so lets let the matter rest until further information was released.