broadsword
Brigadier
How is my post of the general's claim not relevant to "how positively biased reporting on Chinese military industry aligns with Chinese government interests."?
Can you explain?
Chinese Engine Development
- Thread starter jackbh
- Start date
How is my post of the general's claim not relevant to "how positively biased reporting on Chinese military industry aligns with Chinese government interests."?
Can you explain?
I'm sure you have seen many reports about WS10 with all variety of claims, ranging from the wildly optimistic to totally pessimistic. I never said WS10 wasn't installed in Chinese fighters, I said it has yet been widely inducted, which is a plain fact. And of course China hides its flaws, but obviously not everytime.
Encouraging figures
The turbofan game is surely no cakewalk, but no need going to such lengths defending the WS10. China is a late industrializing nation and more technologically capable than India. I get it, but let's not fixate on a dead-end question like "is WS10 a 'good' engine?"
Not intended to get in between you and Hendrik, but is that Encouraging figures not widely inducted? How many regiments of early J-11A and Su-27 are left? And they are gradually being phased out.
Hendrik_2000
Lieutenant General
If 400 engine installed on various J11 derivative like J16, is not widely installed. Then I don't know what it is . For some people simple fact is hard to bear and they are doing all kind of mental gymnastic.
The Fact that we keep seeing new regiment of J16 are formed, is big vote of confidence that WA10 reach its maturity.
The Fact that we keep seeing new regiment of J16 are formed, is big vote of confidence that WA10 reach its maturity.
I made 3 claims about how positively biased reporting on Chinese military industry aligns with Chinese government interests. You cited an example where an ostensibly official source took a more critical stance.
The existence of more critical announcements from authoritative sources simply means that not all commentators affiliated with the Chinese government project a positive bias every time. It doesn't mean that we can assume all official reports are free of bias, nor does it allow us to exclude the assessment that positively biased reporting on WS10 will reasonably align with Chinese government interests on the large.
These numbers if accurate show that WS10 adoption is gaining steam. There's a degree of subjectivity when it comes to defining "widely inducted." This is not defined by a fixed proportion. If the adoption rate is 60% among all suitable platforms, is this "wide" enough? if it is 40% is it "wide" enough? There is no substance in such an argument. If the phrasing "widely inducted" is so contentious, let's just say that WS10 has yet to become the primary engine used by suitable platforms in the PLAAF.
It's good to cite these figures and developments if you want to show that WS10 has made recent gains. But when you start suggesting that the person you are arguing with has some kind of prejudice or some kind of irrational emotional investment, you are the one using ad hominen. I don't know what kinds of prejudice Blackstone has or does not have, but if your "some people" is directed at me, I'm afraid your vitriol is misplaced.
broadsword
Brigadier
I am not concerned with other official reports. I am only concerned with the WS-10 issue which is your bone of contention here. The existence of the criticism by the top general refutes your assertion that the Chinese government hides the true status of the engine.
Do you agree?
If the statistical majority of suitable WS-10 equippable planes are equipped with them, that for all intents and purposes is sufficient grounds for classifying it as a primary engine. The same would hold true if the F100 engine equipped the majority of USAF planes that could use them too.
Anyways... 
2 conflicting (non authoritative) reports from this year with somewhat conflicting claims.
This article from May says that WS10 is 5 times better than before, that China is finally free from Russian leverage over turbofans, and claims that time between overhaul (TBO) has long surpassed 300 hours, is practically passed 500, and that 1000 hours is within sight.
However this article from April, citing AVIC chief, claims that Chinese turbine blade technology has surpassed America, that this will improve TBO from the previous 800 hours to 1500 hours. It also claims that WS10B is almost ready for mass induction, and that J20 will fly with WS15 before 2020.
2 conflicting (non authoritative) reports from this year with somewhat conflicting claims.
This article from May says that WS10 is 5 times better than before, that China is finally free from Russian leverage over turbofans, and claims that time between overhaul (TBO) has long surpassed 300 hours, is practically passed 500, and that 1000 hours is within sight.
However this article from April, citing AVIC chief, claims that Chinese turbine blade technology has surpassed America, that this will improve TBO from the previous 800 hours to 1500 hours. It also claims that WS10B is almost ready for mass induction, and that J20 will fly with WS15 before 2020.
I never made the assertion that the Chinese government hides the developmental status of WS10 because I know that no government will be entirely transparent with status of high priority strategic projects. My "assertion" was listing 3 ways in which the Chinese government HAS INCENTIVE to promote a biased stance on WS10 and I stand by them. I explained in the best logic I could why the report you cited did not refute my claim, and you saying it does will not make it so.
Let's try to understand exactly what we are arguing against instead of arguing for the sake of winning arguments.
Last edited:
Anyways...
2 conflicting (non authoritative) reports from this year with somewhat conflicting claims.
This article from May says that WS10 is 5 times better than before, that China is finally free from Russian leverage over turbofans, and claims that time between overhaul (TBO) has long surpassed 300 hours, is practically passed 500, and that 1000 hours is within sight.
However this article from April, citing AVIC chief, claims that Chinese turbine blade technology has surpassed America, that this will improve TBO from the previous 800 hours to 1500 hours. It also claims that WS10B is almost ready for mass induction, and that J20 will fly with WS15 before 2020.
I'm not interested in the current discussions/arguments between you guys, but just want to point out that sina.com is a horrible source for Chinese military. They should not be the source/base for any serious discussion at all. These two articles are just BAD. It also doesn't matter who they quote in their reports, it almost always be untrue, mistaken, out-of-the-context or all the above.
Just my 2 cents.