Chinese Engine Development
- Thread starter jackbh
- Start date
Would be more contributing for you to stop the first one went off topic.
Assuming your question was not intended as off-topic bait, I will list 3 points which should be obvious.
Producing a perception that Chinese military industry is more advanced than it is, especially in the field of turbofan engine development where it has faced major hurdles, helps to:
1. Improve national pride, cohesion, confidence, and morale among the domestic audience.
2. Raise the deterrence value of the Chinese military as perceived by potential rivals.
3. Improve perception of Chinese military hardware among potential export customers.
It's not necessarily the case that ALL news contains substantial bias, my point is that there are circumstances where certain types of bias are more likely, and that these circumstances are identifiable when we look at how incentives are lined up. Perhaps Blackstone does has his own bias against the Chinese government, but his post was in response to a claim from the state media in a situation where it DOES have an incentive to be biased.
If your car had a unreliable transmission, but you post an ad saying it's in decent shape with new wipers, new lamps, upholstery, low miles while neglecting to mention anything about the transmission, you aren't lying in a technical sense yet you still mislead the reader into an inaccurate perception of your car by withholding relevant information. Instead of attacking his reasonable skepticism at the state media report about WS-10's progress by erecting an anti-CCP straw man of the guy, it would be more productive for the discussion to give reasons why that particular piece of journalism is credible. In fact, that would have prevented all this off topic discussion in the first place.
Whether or not Blackstone is actually biased against the CCP, I think his statement that you find so inflammatory, taken on its own, is not entirely unreasonable nor is it off topic for discussing the state of Chinese engine development.
stibyssip, IDK how closely you follow this message board, but the technical merits of the claims made in that article have been discussed ad nauseum long before that article was published. Blackstone knows that, we know that, and we know that he knows that. If you haven't noticed, nobody, not even Blackstone, is discussing the merits of the article, but simply focusing on the credibility of the source. This is because it is simply a waste of all our time to discuss the facts that we're all very well aware of yet another time.
Also, due to his long history on this board, his statement is not taken on its own, instead it fits into a pattern of actions, which is probably why we all find it more inflammatory than you, who probably did take that post on its own.
Also, due to his long history on this board, his statement is not taken on its own, instead it fits into a pattern of actions, which is probably why we all find it more inflammatory than you, who probably did take that post on its own.
Engineer
Major
That doesn't mean the car isn't in decent shape with new wipers, new lamps, upholstery, and low mileage. Do not confuse accuracy with precision.
Nope.
Instead of justifying unreasonable skepticism on the state media's report about WS-10, it would be more productive for the discussion for doubters to show proofs to dispute the report. In fact, that would have prevented this off topic discussion in the first place. The major contributing factor for a thread to go off topic is because someone copped out on providing evidence.
Ad hominem is not reasonable argument, it is a logical fallacy.
Engineer
Major
The state media could actually be underreporting the advancement in Chinese military industry. That actually fits better into China's strategy of “observe calmly, secure our position, cope with affairs calmly, hide our capacities and bide our time, be good at maintaining a low profile, and never claim leadership.”
broadsword
Brigadier
In 2009, a Chinese General went on record to say publicly the WS-10 engine was totally unreliable. It sent shockwaves and glee around the world. I guess you were not in the loop yet. Maybe that could be also the reason why Blackstone has remained skeptical of any of its deployment.
Fair enough. The original article mostly makes only modest claims anyways. The only statement in the article that might be questionable is on how Chinese engine technologies has supposedly caught up to the West during the 90s. It would be great if this was the case but looking at the relatively low adoption rate of domestic turbofans in military fighters, and no adoption in any commercial airliners or transport planes; it's hard not to reserve some doubts.
@Engineer, I find issues with the logic you use in your first post, but in the interest of moving forward let's talk about something more interesting.
I am familiar with Deng Xiaoping's 'hide and bide' strategy. It was highly relevant at a time when the country had big ambitions but grossly inadequate military capabilities for power projection. Since the 1980s, China's military parity gap with the West has shrank considerably. Likewise, China has literally been 'testing the waters' by backing up territorial claims in the SCS with force and to the clear chagrin of the US. This seems to signal a revision of the strategic policy of the past. It is strategically advantageous for every country to hide its full military capabilities to some extent, but China today clearly has something to gain from bearing its teeth and showing off its firepower occasionally. Just think about the appearance at Zhuhai of not one but two J20s, and the WS-15 isn't even ready.
I am not aware of this particular statement, but I am aware that there have been conflicting reports from various Chinese sources about the status of WS-10 over the years. If there were "shockwaves of glee" in 2009 from international observers at China's supposed lack of progress in engine development, it must be from those with interests opposed to Chinese military interests. However I don't see how the introduction of this claim is relevant to my 3 points about how positively biased reporting on Chinese military industry aligns with Chinese government interests.
Hendrik_2000
Lieutenant General
@stibyssip
There is no conflicting report at all. WS10A is a young engine .
First went into serial production in 2010 so like any new engine it went thru a teething development phase and the general acknowledge this in 2009. So he called a spade a spade. The stereotype of China hiding their flaw is another western media propaganda.
Against I don't know where you get an idea that WS 10 is not installed in Chinese built fighter.
There more than 6 or even 7 regiment of J11B flying every day with WS10A .Add to that couple regiment of J16 easily there are more than 200 aircraft flying with WS10A right now that is 400 engine. And the are no crashes reported so far. Comparable Indian Su MKi have only 50% availability and shorter engine MTBO. 5 of the already crash due to engine failure.Check few pages in this thread there is confirmation from the maker of WS10A
J11, J16 are priority item and they are strategic platform(as proof by the existence of new VLAAM unlike J10. So the fact that it doesn't show on J 10 doesn't show in any way the validity of WS10 engine.Another thing there is any report of new order for AL31 engine sofar
So I would say they did tremendous job for a country that is 90years behind the west in Turbofan industry
And subject to stringent technical embargo.Basically they have to reinvent the wheel for every technology associated with the turbo fan industry
Building Turbo fan is not an easy job just ask the Indian with all the help of Salyut, Snecma and access to western technology they can't make it work.
Last edited:
That is the problem. Who made those reports? Are they (the negative reports about WS-10) more reliable than the positive report (by the state media)? Are they deemed "reliable" ONLY because they are negative fitting somebody's (Blackstone being one) wish? Or because they actually reveal some reliable data and statistics (none so far)?
By thinking of these questions, you should be able to see the root cause of the whole debate?
From a pure debate perspective, the positive and negative reports are either equally reliable or unreliable. But Blackstone choose to repeat his assertion of the 100% unreliability of the positive reports to the point of annoyance of many. That behavior is akin to propaganda, not a constructive debate. And it always bring up a mini shit storm as others have put it.