Probably no hit in range from what it’s currently flying. Probably no gain either though. The WS-15 is a generational leap in the compressor core technology. That means more efficient per pound thrust fuel consumption. How you allocate that budget is a different matter but typically you can opt to get more thrust for the same fuel consumption.
Chinese Engine Development
- Thread starter jackbh
- Start date
manqiangrexue
Brigadier
But I thought you said "Everything I can tell about the ATEP is that it’s actually not innovating as much in compressor design and they’ve gone the route of making VCE work while running the engine hotter and harder with better materials." Which means to me that ATEP isn't a huge technological improvement over the F119/F135? Or you mean that the material science itself is much of the milestones?
OK, so can I interpret this to mean that to the best of your knowledge, despite the 20 year gap, there are no (or very few) technological milestones separating the F-119/F-135 (without consideration the the vertical lift ability) and the WS-15?
I thought supercruise is to save fuel and increase range by going supersonic without using afterburners? Why does it guzzle gas if it doesn't activate afterburners?
Compressor design is only one of multiple parameters you can push performance through. It’s the biggest one but not the only big one. I would say compressor design is more fundamental but variable cycle is more novel. They’re both big technical achievements.
Materials *can* be a big leap too but it depends on the materials being introduced.
Imo yes. But without details about the WS-15 I can’t say with certainty.
Supersonic cruise uses way more fuel than subsonic cruise. Supersonic cruise uses way less fuel than supersonic afterburner. Supersonic cruise at around Mach 1.5+ is more efficient than supersonic cruise at Mach 1.2 because of transonic shock effects that terminate at around Mach 1.3 (actual number is dependent on the airframe design). The F119 is not a more fuel hungry engine than the F110 or F100. It’s a more capable engine that’s sometimes used for more fuel hungry modes of flight.
You should check out bypass ratio of these engines (including two versions of F-135). WS-15 and F119 are for high speed jets, not the same as F-135s purpose. I am not suggesting higher speed is critical (or not), but these engines had different design goals. They should not be compared.
WS-15 is probably better than the original F-119, just because F-119 was too old. WS-15 is probably worse than the best F-119 variant US can produce using latest technologies, but that project does not exist. The US, went on to create one jet for all in F-35, thus F-135 have different goals. F-135 itself is truly a marvel of engineering, however it's Apples and Oranges. Not many countries have the same "one jet fits all" philosophy.
Yeah, the basic F135 is a relatively low-risk F119 derivative, but for good reason - the STOVL variant was a seriously ambitious undertaking. I mean, technically we are talking about a thrust-vectoring, variable-cycle (two discrete settings), three-stream, geared-turbofan engine with reaction control jets! Even the vanilla model introduced a couple of more-electric features (which proved rather troublesome initially) and the turbine inlet temperature underwent quite a hike over the already hot F119, too.
As the key enabler of the first operational stealthy, supersonic STOVL fighter, the F135-PW-600 is possibly the most impressive aspect of the entire project, to be frank.
You are right, of course. You´re not doing a good job, though, since informing (properly) is supposed to be your job as a journalist. Then, when the politician on duty (...) needs to be informed for serious reasons (such as a war or a security threat, not a movie on Netflix), trouble happens and it´s maybe the military or civilians who pay. They got it wrong with the Russian missile industry and now they get it wrong with the whole Chinese military ecosystem that is going 1.5X. The W10C:
In its iniyial versions as beautifully recounted here (and I thank you from the bottom of my heart); it went from a shoddy 3-generation powertrain to an almost 5gen (less) one in 10 years (or so). With radars and software we are there and also with missiles and their propulsion systems (their search systems were already very advanced, especially in the IIR sector and then NO ONE besides China currently i can afford production installments on T/R modules (of various kinds). NONE. Ciao.
Ciao. WS-15: To be behind only the F-135 in 15 years is a miracle. But maybe not .)...
Yeah F135-600 is pretty ridiculous engineering lol. It’s one of the most Rube Goldberg engines you can find. Basically a low bypass jet engine that can also operating as a hybrid turboshaft.
I think that one thing that cannot be understated is that China did not take short cuts with the WS-15 this time, meaning that they didn't play around tweaking and optimizing the design to sacrifice MTBO in favor of greater thrust or such nonsense. Every nut and bolt they used is top of the line and has reached international standards. Even if the engine does not exceed F-119 or F-135 in a lot of parameters it is still very fine in my opinion. The important thing here is that the development process has been refined to the degree that they can finally go from design blueprints to prototype to production model smoothly, and best of all 98% of them are sourced within China itself, and the rest of the 2% can be easily replaced should the need arise.
Zzz. American engine development hardly moved after 20 years from 2000s. Just need some iterative development on WS-15 and you are at today's level. Shocking I know. The 20 year gaps are not equal. 40 year gap vs 20 year gap is a huge gap. 20 year to today is nothing.