Chinese Engine Development

Tomboy said:

You are seriously comparing 1960s USSR to Mid 2000s Russia?

Click to expand...

Then why did you bring up 1960s USSR? Why would that period be related here when everyone, on both sides, used expendable turbojets?

China did not start the attrition campaigns against F-15s and F-16s with J-7s or J-8s and their WP-7s and WP-13s.

GiantPanda said:

Japan ~100 F-2 and ~200 F-15
ROC ~ 150 F-16 and 60 M2K

That's over 500 4th gens powered mainly by F100/110.

There were around 200 J-16s and another 200 J-11B/S when the campaigns began in around the mid-2010s.

If the TBO of the WS-10 were greatly behind the F-100/110, China would be wearing its own 4th gen planes out. China engines might be behind but not by the stupidity pushed by idiots that the WS-10 TBO is just a few hundred hours compared to the Western jets of 2000 to 4000. The difference is much closer in order for China to even try the attrition campaigns.

And against not one but both Japan and RoC.

Click to expand...

China should now throttle rare earths exports to Japan and Taiwan. They need rare earths for their engines and missiles. Make sure the US only has enough for its own military.

GiantPanda said:

Then why did you bring up 1960s USSR? Why would that period be related here when everyone, on both sides, used expendable turbojets?

China did not start the attrition campaigns against F-15s and F-16s with J-7s or J-8s and their WP-7s and WP-13s.

Click to expand...

J-7s and J-8s were also one sided suicide against F-15s and F-16s and at the time it was not in the interest to stir up the region without credible deterrence neither was the PLAAF of the time rich enough to sustain this.

Also, your statement is completely untrue. British engines were already pushing 2000-2500 hrs in service lifespan while in the early 60s USSRs could do 500 hrs max. You are confusing WW2 era and Coldwar.

By your logic the USSR should not be able to sustain even patrols along it's vast border and fighting NATO should be a wet dream.

Tomboy said:

J-7s and J-8s were also one sided suicide against F-15s and F-16s and at the time it was not in the interest to stir up the region without credible deterrence neither was the PLAAF of the time rich enough to sustain this.

Also, your statement is completely untrue. British engines were already pushing 2000-2500 hrs in service lifespan while in the early 60s USSRs could do 500 hrs max. You are confusing WW2 era and Coldwar.
View attachment 165351
By your logic the USSR should not be able to sustain even patrols along it's vast border and fighting NATO should be a wet dream.

Click to expand...

No, by your logic, China should be using J-7s and J-8s instead of wrecking the engines on their 4th Gen.

Against Japan and RoC, China is in an attrition campaign. USSR was patroling "ts vast borders." China was also patroling its vast borders plus racheting up the flights against Japan and RoC.

You are making the assumption that WS-10 TBO are low but China can still do it by outputting more engines.

1) If TBO were low then why not use the WP-7/13 instead of WS-10 machines? No one is shooting anyone in these campaigns. Why not save the low time capacity on the WS-10 machines and just flood the opposing side with turbojets?

2) The only way low TBO engines can work in an attrition campaign against F-15s/F-16s AND use turbofans instead of turbojets is that China can out produce the F100/110 with the WS-10 and do the WS-10 more economical than the WP turbojet series. Both of which are likely to be untrue.

Then MTBO doesn't matter at all if the country with the supposedly low reliability engines can mount attrition campaigns against the ones with the high reliability engines.

Maybe it wouldn't matter if China were using mass turbojet aircraft against the F-15/F-16 like the Soviets. But using WS-10 engined aircraft as the main elements in the sorties pretty much means you are putting up engine vs engine and seeing if you can wear them out first.

Whatever the lead Western engines, in this case the F100/110, have over the WS-10 is pretty meaningless if China can mount their campaigns against your supposedly more reliable engines.

GiantPanda said:

China would never have embarked on this compaign of attrition against Japan and the RoC as far back as 2017 if its engines were not comparable.

The most common Chinese fighters around Taiwan and the East China Sea are J-16s and J-11Bs which are WS-10 powered.

Were the TBO very low then the PLAAF be wrecking their own force. But no, they were putting pressure on the Japanese F-15s and RoC F-16s.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Across the Atlantic, US and Canadian fighters under command of NORAD, the North American Aerospace Defense Command, has averaged just seven

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

since 2007, said Capt. Cameron Hillier, a spokesperson for NORAD and the US Northern Command in Colorado. Some years, US and Canadian fighter jets haven’t had to scramble at all.

Japan has seen no such respite. Using the same 2007 time frame as NORAD, even in its slowest year, 2009, Japan scrambled its fighter jets more than 200 times.

Analyst Peter Layton, a former Royal Australian Air Force pilot now with the Griffith Asia Institute, believes the pressure China puts on Japan by air is part of a larger plan.

“I think China wants to keep the JASDF off-balance and reactive, wear out its aircraft and air crew, gain training and keep the pressure up daily on who owns the disputed islands,” Layton told CNN.

In a commentary last year

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

blog from Australia’s Lowy Institute, Layton detailed just how far the Chinese flights stretch the JASDF, and how China has the resources to push Japan to limits it may not be able to reach.

“The JASDF’s fleet of some 215 F-15J aircraft bears the brunt of scramble tasking,” he wrote.

“Since 2016, the JASDF have often launched four aircraft for each scramble.

“These daily scrambles are gradually wearing the F-15J fleet out. The concern is that China has some six times more fighters then the JASDF, and could further ramp up intrusions whenever it considers appropriate. The in-service life of Japan’s F-15J fleet is now almost a decision that lies with China,” Layton said.

Click to expand...

When did I say the engines weren’t comparable and TBO was very low?

F100 PW 229 has a hot section MTBO of 1700 hours, I estimated WS-10B to be 1200-1500 hours. In comparison, the AL-31F has a MTBO of 1000 hours, and the M88-2 is >1000 hours. This makes the WS-10B well within the normal time interval for 4th gen engines, with the Americans leading, which shouldn't be a surprise to anyone.

China has far more capacity to build spares and parts for the WS-10 versus anything the island chain nations can muster so it’s not even close.