Even there are images you wouldn’t know if it’s WS-18 since it looks just like D-30KP2, don’t expect any significant differences since this company is literally the weakest among all Chinese engine manufacturers.
Chinese Engine Development
- Thread starter jackbh
- Start date
Have we had any news on combined cycle engine development? I am hoping both China and the United States can make strides in that area to bring true hypersonic aircraft into being.
If you know Chinese, you can watch this video
The gist is Feitian-1 is a test vehicle for the Tengyun’s engines. Feitian-1’s engine is RBCC, Tengyun’s engine will add a turbojet to the system and becomes TBCC
Anyone know if China is developing a variable cycle engine for next gen fighter aircraft?
Only the thinnest of whispers. Tbh I don’t know if that’s the direction Chinese engine development will end up going, at least not yet. It seems that one possible direction for China’s future military turbofans is to go with a new high pressure compressor that can attain a pressure ratio of 10 with just 4 stages (as opposed to a pressure ratio of 6 with 5-6 stages that current cutting edge designs can do), which should allow improved efficiency without needing to develop a variable cycle mechanism. Of course these are not mutually exclusive directions, but I think we see a bit more evidence for a new compressor design than for a variable bypass system.
There were talks of the Chinese variable cycle project in the past where program members on state tv have mentioned timelines for other engine programs and mentioned variable cycle (advent equivalent) is progressing well and on schedule. Mentioned in passing but no doubt an intentional, screened, and approved "leak" if you will. Can't remember when this was but most likely also linked on this thread years back.
The thing with advent/variable cycle though is that it is certainly more useful to the Americans with their posture and geostrategic position. It's essentially an engine that combines the best of high and low bypass to improve efficiency. Allows the host aircraft to function in a wider range of speed and altitude regimes. This is useful to the US because they want their next generation carrier fighters to have such long range they can place carriers further away from Chinese A2AD which increases in capability the closer you are to China's coast.
For China, this has considerably less useful. Let's say it costs a certain amount to develop and field it, is that effort justified for China? Certainly much less than it is for the US but range is always good to have. It just depends on how you decide to spread your resources. Is it worthwhile at the expense of other programs? Who knows but it's certainly the next step in military turbofans so as a piece of technology it is something China needs to eventually develop to cross that bridge. Whether we see priority in this project remains to be seen.
There may be more suitable propulsion types for next gen fighters aircraft, from China's perspective and unique position of needing to counter US in western Pacific. They may go into placing emphasis on different tech branches or unmanned, swarming, AI optimised (complete), combined cycle engines instead, ws-15 good enough because importance is in other metrics of engine performance and not range, etc
The thing with advent/variable cycle though is that it is certainly more useful to the Americans with their posture and geostrategic position. It's essentially an engine that combines the best of high and low bypass to improve efficiency. Allows the host aircraft to function in a wider range of speed and altitude regimes. This is useful to the US because they want their next generation carrier fighters to have such long range they can place carriers further away from Chinese A2AD which increases in capability the closer you are to China's coast.
For China, this has considerably less useful. Let's say it costs a certain amount to develop and field it, is that effort justified for China? Certainly much less than it is for the US but range is always good to have. It just depends on how you decide to spread your resources. Is it worthwhile at the expense of other programs? Who knows but it's certainly the next step in military turbofans so as a piece of technology it is something China needs to eventually develop to cross that bridge. Whether we see priority in this project remains to be seen.
There may be more suitable propulsion types for next gen fighters aircraft, from China's perspective and unique position of needing to counter US in western Pacific. They may go into placing emphasis on different tech branches or unmanned, swarming, AI optimised (complete), combined cycle engines instead, ws-15 good enough because importance is in other metrics of engine performance and not range, etc
I would argue that VCEs and the enhancements in operational range for an aircraft of a given size, is as useful to the PLA as it would be to the US.
It increases the range in which you can exert the effects of your airpower whether it be combat air patrol/air superiority, strike, ISR, EW or otherwise, from any given base.
It is as important for land based fighters as it is for carrierborne fighters.
For 6th generation fighters, I expect VCEs and a focus on increased range to be as much of a defining feature as MUMT/UCAV integration, further enhanced sensor fusion/AI enabled capabilities, more so called "broadband stealth," increased payload capacity, will be.
Whether the PLA itself will actually pursue a VCE engine as a major subsystem for its 6th generation fighter is another matter -- but I seriously expect some sort of engine that is more advanced than WS-15 that emphasizes improved fuel consumption for various flight regimes (or at least some kind of engine that enhances operational range compared to existing engines) to emerge.
Could you post a screenshot with translation?
I could try.
Attachments
-
WS-19.jpg