Nice try, CIA.
Chinese Engine Development
- Thread starter jackbh
- Start date
Dang it.
Guess I'll resort to cyberattacks /s
But in all seriousness, it'd be great if you can just, you know, check a document instead.
There is a Wikipedia page but it seems not very accurate or up.to date.
We don't even have up to date numbers (or even speculative numbers) for many of those parameters for contemporary powerplants, let alone being able to populate a spreadsheet lol.
If anything, the lack of an attempt at any sort of spreadsheet or convenient "source" or "reference" is useful because it tells people how fraught and limited in information we are.
But some numbers are better than none, no? Just some figures and details e.g.:
WS10B: 1?? - 1?? kN, 4000 hours TBO, adopted into service in 20XX, currently equipped on J-16s.
It's exactly because of the lack of data that a documentation of all known and available information is useful, no? Or you'd have to do a Google search that lasts between 10 seconds or 2 hours.
Exactly why I'm inquiring. Just a documentation of all know data so I wouldn't have to rely on Wikipedia.
I actually strongly disagree.
I do not see having a "lack of specific numbers" as a problem -- what I do see as a problem is when numbers or information try to get conveyed with more worth than they deserve, and ends up creating a mistaken first impression that is difficult to get corrected down the line when better information comes to light.
It would be better if when people googled those numbers, that the first result is "how dare you have the audacity to think you can access this to begin with".
Isn't this, in a way, withholding information? I have a slight distaste in encouraging people to be ignorant, indirectly or not. Even if it's under the assumption that people who use these information take them at face value.
I do understand your concern, but they can be mitigated, IMHO by simply, in bold letters, THESE FIGURES ARE FOR ROUGH REFERENCE ONLY AND HAVE A VERY HIGH CHANCE OF BEING INACCURATE. PROCEED WITH CAUTION.
We certainly don't know the actual figures, but we do have ballparks. As long as it's taken with caution I don't see much harm.
I can only say this from nearly a decade of experience in interfacing with your average pedestrian individual who is interested in these matters... but yes I think encouraging people to accept that they are ignorant and thus they know that they are not equipped to be able to engage in certain discussions is important, until they can demonstrate the competency to wield it with context.
To be clear, there are some (emphasis on some) ballpark numbers that exist. But that doesn't mean it should be open information and easily accessible -- not because we want to gatekeep knowledge, but rather because if everyone can access it, then it means everyone can use it in discussions without actually knowing the context and relevance for when to reference them.
If everyone were able to read and learn without actually posting things until they developed a minimum level of competency, then I would certainly have a different approach.
Putting it another way, it isn't so much that I think gatekeeping knowledge is the goal, but rather gatekeeping people's ability have discussions about topics that is kind of outside of their grasp and that when they post it ends up creating more misinformation and more work for the rest of us in pursuit of accuracy.
Edit: alternatively, the idea of creating a reference sheet or site also by extension means that whoever does so needs to be sufficiently knowledgeable, respected and have good enough reasoning to be trusted to begin with ("subject-to-change" notwithstanding), which I don't think anyone in the community wants to yet claim that mantle.
Last edited:
No because the moment some numbers pop-up, even if you put a dozen disclaimers that they are hypothetical, you are immediately going to have everyone running with them them as sort of gospel. Better they stay "unknown" than to further deteriorate the PLA-watching environment.
If you want to blame someone, blame the "OSINT" and the general military-watching/think-tank community for having to resort to such measures.
I would argue that's the entire point of a disclaimer, but I've witnessed levels of lack of critical thinking to know that you're probably right.
How sad.