thunderchief
Senior Member
Definite proof in my book would be to offer export variant of J-10 with WS-10 and/or JF-17 with WS-13 , just like they sold J-7 with WP-13 . That alone would speak more than any tests , exercises , war games etc ...
Chinese Engine Development
- Thread starter jackbh
- Start date
Definite proof in my book would be to offer export variant of J-10 with WS-10 and/or JF-17 with WS-13 , just like they sold J-7 with WP-13 . That alone would speak more than any tests , exercises , war games etc ...
Equation
Lieutenant General
Yeah but in order to get into combat, the pilot has rely on his engines of the planes first. Static numbers doesn't always guarantee victory or survival, because there are so many unknown detriments arrives during a dog fight or bvr engagements. If ground crews are having issues and troubles with the engines than what's the point of having an air force at all if they have to replace or fix parts all the time during a war period? You are welcome to point any potentials you want on the WS-10 but to claim it as inferior to AL-31 without knowing its full specifications is ridiculous. And one shouldn't make that kind of assumption even if China will never brings it out. That doesn't mean they are hiding the defects either, according to so many of the expert naysayers out there (no not you).
I'm not talking about static numbers. I'm pointing out how service life has nothing to do with combat performance. Service life also doesn't indicate whether a ground crew will have issues and troubles with the engine, unless you are inept in logistics and upkeep, which I'm going to assume the PLA isn't. Anyways, as I've mentioned earlier we've heard service life figures all over the place, so I'm not entirely sure that's a strong point of the WS-10 as it is.
Going by what available information can be gleaned is not making assumptions. If it were, you would be doing quite a bit of that yourself.
Uhhh, who was making claims of superiority without full specifications first? Certainly wasn't me.
Last edited:
franco-russe
Senior Member
The fifth J-11B/WS-10A regiment is 9 Naval Aviation Division 25 Regiment Lingshui, being re-equipped since the start of this year.
broadsword
Brigadier
Being re-equipped with WS-10A?
Equation
Lieutenant General
Going by assumptions from people who don't want to see China's engine progressing doesn't make their arguments and view points as the holy grail to judge on the WS-10. You can have a million haters nit picking on whatever info they had on China's engine and they can make up a plethora of excuses for it. Like they say, if you can repeat a lie long enough people will believe it. Just look at how many negatives we get about China's progress on it's engine by the media and the many so called "experts" out there. They can easily warped the readers into believing it as well.
Going by the assumptions of people who are unrealistically optimistic, refuse to accept any news unless it paints China's engine program in the best possible light, and feel the need to engage in a moral crusade every time someone points out potential problems is even worse. You can have a million fanboys making up whatever information they want and make a million excuses for why bad news must be lies. If you can repeat a lie long enough, people will indeed believe it, especially if they predispose themselves to certain kinds of lies by the way of their emotions and attitudes. Look at how much irrational negative reaction (and the hurt feelings! Who knew you could hurt people with disagreements about fact!) we get when someone dares to suggest that not everything will be rosy and that not everything about China's engine program will be unending accelerating progress.
FYI, I don't judge the reliability of sources by who offers good news, but who's been largely right, and how consistent new information is with fact patterns. It's called being objective and not letting my biases affect my factual understanding. Facts take no sides but that of reality, and I prefer it over some kind of ill founded nationalistic ego, least of all because believing you're more than the truth can only make you look foolish.
If you think my judgment is faulty, fine, but unless you have actual factual arguments to refute whatever observations or point I may be making, kindly keep it to yourself. I like good arguments and debates, and trying to attack the credibility of a person without keeping to one's own standard of credibility is neither good argument nor good debate.
Last edited:
Equation
Lieutenant General
Be careful of who you are calling a fan boy. I'm just going by the actual facts of the WS-10 are in use in large numbers. Apparently some doubters just don't want to admit it.
If you're going by the so called actual news information from doubters than the same can be said about on the Chinese side point of view. Trying to be objective on a bias point of view becomes subjective when the author has no insight to the nature of that "issue" in the first place.
And I've already pointed out how that using them in large numbers does not contradict them having problems.
How do you know that I'm getting my information from doubters? Did you spy on my forum visits or something *rollseyes*. Is tphuang a doubter? This is exactly what I meant when I brought up the point about fanboys. You don't even know where I got my information. What makes you think that only doubters will point out potential problems with the engine. Do you have factual basis for declaring that one point of view is biased and another isn't, or are you simply making empty accusations on account of your own biases? But I suppose not. I guess since you know so much, I should be getting the information from you and simply eat up everything you say, and nod my head whenever you accuse someone of following and believing doubters simply because they're making points that don't conform to what you believe. This is silly. For the last three replies all you've done is accuse me of getting my information from doubters while presenting zero evidence, on a row that started when you demanded that I presented evidence when I simply pointed out the ws-10's performance did not merit the fantastical evidence-less comparison with the al-31 you made. I'm done.
Last edited: