Chinese Engine Development

Tomboy said:

Please, educate me on engine technology. People here were outraged when J-20A does not have WS-15 and as far as I've seen people here talk WS-10, even in the latest iteration is likely nowhere near on par with the latest American engines. I don't see how this would not impact aircraft performance.

Click to expand...

People who are ignorant should not be entitled to strong feelings. Engine performance is in a simplified crude sense driven by mass flow*compressor power*turbine temp. The general principle is you are taking in a certain volume of air, squeezing the air stream, lighting the airstream on fire, then letting the stream re-expanding to get thrust. Mass flow is determined by the core and fan diameters. Compressor power is determined by the number of stages of the compressor, the aerodynamic efficiency of compressor cycle, and the rpm the compressor is being run on. TIT is determined by compression ratio (squeeze more air, get more concentrated oxygen, burn hotter) and combustion chamber efficiency. Your materials “matter” here in the sense that if you want to run your engine faster and hotter you need materials that can survive those operating conditions.

The difference between the WS-10 and WS-15 is primarily in the engine cycle architecture. The materials used between the updated WS-10 and WS-15 meanwhile should be pretty similar. The WS-15’s more modern architecture should allow the engine to have a much broader flight envelope range where it can maintain high thrust margins, and should be better optimized for supersonic performance, but outside of that what’s attainable with the WS-10 architecture should be more than adequate for most combat employment scenarios (Actual achievable thrust isn’t static and depends on different flight conditions, since the air stream conditions are also a factor in how well your compression cycles operate. Presumably the WS-15 is actually a superior architecture than the F119, and thus probably also the F135). The GE F110, which is what the WS-10’s engine core is based off of, was a very well designed engine architecture that had excellent thrust growth prospects from the start (see my reply to doggydogdo).

But either way an updated WS-10 does not need to be the equal of the F135 to be sufficiently capable engine for critical performance requirements. Nor is the engine itself the end all be all of a modern fighter. Y’all need to stop being so fragile. And if you must insist on making discussion into performative displays of hysteria I recommend you take it somewhere else. This is not the forum for that.

Tomboy said:

Please, educate me on engine technology. People here were outraged when J-20A does not have WS-15

Click to expand...

That's because there are a lot of people here who are also childish and are used to getting new toys nownownownownow rather than recognizing engines are basically the most finnicky product to not only develop but also establish mass production on.

People had somewhat convinced themselves into the idea that J-20A would enter production with WS-15s rather than recognizing that there was every possibility the J-11B situation might emerge (using an interim engine in production in initial batches before later batches getting the target engine), which is also akin to the J-20 situation.

In other words, people were a bit simple, sometimes naive.

Tomboy said:

and as far as I've seen people here talk WS-10, even in the latest iteration is likely nowhere near on par with the latest American engines.

Click to expand...

What "latest" engine are we specifying? US fighter jet turbofans that are in in production have not advanced that greatly over the last 20 years.

If we are talking about the likes of F119 or F135, the latest WS-10 variants are close enough to the performance needed for J-20A (and J-20 before it) that having WS-15 would open up more aerodynamic performance envelope but not to such an extent that it makes for an entirely different aircraft.

Tomboy said:

I don't see how this would not impact aircraft performance.

Click to expand...

Obviously different engines would impact aircraft performance.

The question is whether the impact on aircraft performance is sufficient to:
A) be considered decisive, crippling or significant in context of modern air power trends
B) be considered sufficient to warrant freakouts

If we are talking about J-20A, the answer is no.


And I want to get back to the post where frankly the content of what you wrote was below your usual conduct:

Tomboy said:

How long? I'm just sick of the days where China is behind. If they don't solve this quickly another generation of planes is going to be finalized with worse engines than the US which means potential compromises made elsewhere to make up.

Click to expand...

This post which started it all, is a bit ridiculous.
The long wait for WS-10 to be ready for PLA use -- very long for J-10s, and also fairly long for domestic Flankers -- was a situation which was far more extenuating than the situation is now, and the fact that people both then and now have an emotional investment in this matter is ridiculous.

If one wants to talk about the time gap and capability or technology gap, it is far smaller now than it was before, and it is only further closing.


The fact that there are people on this forum who can't realize it and became despondent when J-20As entered production with a WS-10 variant, is laughable and makes me feel the PLA should cancel the WS-15 to let them learn some humility and patience.

latenlazy said:

People who are ignorant should not be entitled to strong feelings. The difference between the WS-10 and WS-15 is primarily in the engine cycle architecture. The materials used between the updated WS-10 and WS-15 meanwhile should be pretty similar. The WS-15 should have a much broader flight envelope range where it can maintain high thrust margins (actual achievable thrust isn’t static and depends on different flight conditions, in this it’s actually superior to the F119 and thus probably also the F135), and should be better optimized for supersonic performance, but outside of that what’s attainable with the WS-10 architecture should be more than adequate for most combat employment scenarios. The GE F110, which is what the WS-10’s engine core is based off of, was a very well designed engine architecture that had excellent thrust growth prospects from the start (see my reply to doggydogdo).

Click to expand...

Blitzo said:

That's because there are a lot of people here who are also childish and are used to getting new toys nownownownownow rather than recognizing engines are basically the most finnicky product to not only develop but also establish mass production on.

People had somewhat convinced themselves into the idea that J-20A would enter production with WS-15s rather than recognizing that there was every possibility the J-11B situation might emerge (using an interim engine in production in initial batches before later batches getting the target engine), which is also akin to the J-20 situation.

In other words, people were a bit simple, sometimes naive.




What "latest" engine are we specifying? US fighter jet turbofans that are in in production have not advanced that greatly over the last 20 years.

If we are talking about the likes of F119 or F135, the latest WS-10 variants are close enough to the performance needed for J-20A (and J-20 before it) that having WS-15 would open up more aerodynamic performance envelope but not to such an extent that it makes for an entirely different aircraft.




Obviously different engines would impact aircraft performance.

The question is whether the impact on aircraft performance is sufficient to:
A) be considered decisive, crippling or significant in context of modern air power trends
B) be considered sufficient to warrant freakouts

If we are talking about J-20A, the answer is no.


And I want to get back to the post where frankly the content of what you wrote was below your usual conduct:


This post which started it all, is a bit ridiculous.
The long wait for WS-10 to be ready for PLA use -- very long for J-10s, and also fairly long for domestic Flankers -- was a situation which was far more extenuating than the situation is now, and the fact that people both then and now have an emotional investment in this matter is ridiculous.

If one wants to talk about the time gap and capability or technology gap, it is far smaller now than it was before, and it is only further closing.


The fact that there are people on this forum who can't realize it and became despondent when J-20As entered production with a WS-10 variant, is laughable and makes me feel the PLA should cancel the WS-15 to let them learn some humility and patience.

Click to expand...

Thanks guys, sorry for the commotion

Tomboy said:

Thanks guys, sorry for the commotion

Click to expand...

as per shenhua, They left out a lot new missiles and equipment due to lack of time.. two CCA were seen during the rehearsals but didn't join the parade and looks like one of the CCA has flat nozzle. but they decided its not right time to showcase this tech openly.

2D TVC first publicly present in Zhuhai air show 2022.. J-XDS has the same nozzles. so i believe tech is already completed.

According to some not entirely reliable sources, the reason UADF did not adopt 2D TVC is due to the lower reliability of a single engine compared to dual engines. I think this explains why we see it on the J-XDS but not on the UADF. I believe that as reliability improves, we will see it in subsequent batches of test aircraft.

this thread honestly is just getting tiresome. We now have a situation where China can mass produce a whole lineup of engines across all product line and no domestic projects are held back. And people are still complaining.

The significance of them being able to create so many UCAVs due to availability of domestic engines is quite big.

tphuang said:

this thread honestly is just getting tiresome. We now have a situation where China can mass produce a whole lineup of engines across all product line and no domestic projects are held back. And people are still complaining.

The significance of them being able to create so many UCAVs due to availability of domestic engines is quite big.

Click to expand...

Truht is no matter what you say people will complain they have to see to believe lol

Tomboy said:

I never understand why engines are always such a hold up. I mean comon people the US had these technology in the bloody 90s. We should be easily toe to toe with the US in 2025, not behind. I mean, WS-10 on three generations of aircraft?? If something isn't on parity or better than the US these days it should be unacceptable.

Click to expand...

It takes 10 years to develop an engine. 20 years to develop materials.
And skipping steps is usually no help. Often high temperature materials developed for use in the highest temperature core of the engine in one generation are used in high pressure, high temperature, sections in the generation afterwards and so on.

The Soviets had the same issue. They were perpetually one generation behind in jet engine technology to the US. This is because the US had early access to the Whittle jet engine while the Russians only had access to the Nene many years later.

gelgoog said:

It takes 10 years to develop an engine. 20 years to develop materials.
And skipping steps is usually no help. Often high temperature materials developed for use in the highest temperature core of the engine in one generation are used in high pressure sections in the generation afterwards and so on.

Click to expand...

usually agree with you all the time but this 20 years Material statement is not correct.

China literally developed all gas turbine related advanced material in last 10-15 years. maybe its coz of 2nd mover advantage and heavy spending in R&D.

It is not impossible to shorten these cycles if you have access to outside information.
The Soviets reverse engineered the Nimonic metal alloy by figuring out its chemical and structural composition (via chromatography, mass spectrometry and crystallography) from metal shavings. But then you still have to figure out how to produce the material, source the base materials for it, figure out the treatment processes, how forming is done, or whatever.

In the case of engine design it is possible to do it in 5 years. But this is using already available and well tested engine architecures and materials. You won't get a bleeding edge technology engine by doing this.