...which is what I said, yes.
Chinese Engine Development
- Thread starter jackbh
- Start date
VCE is not the perfect solution to everything I'm afraid. First of all VCE engines are usually heavy and cannot possibly reach TWR 15 like how next gen conventional engines are projected to reach. Then they are expected to cost three times as much as conventional engines from us estimates, so not exactly cheap. Keeping research on conventional engines is also necessary for collaborated developments with other jet configurations such as turboshafts.
There’s an ambitious 4 stage vaneless compressor design with a pressure ratio of 10 that was originally identified as the prototype core for the TWR 15 engine. Research has been continuing on it since 2015 (last paper I saw on it was from end of 2024 I think). Not sure if it’s still in the running for the next generation engine or if they’re developing a VCE around this core.
TWR is not as useful of a metric as before especially when dogfighting and close quarter combat is dead(IMO, good VCE design should still achieve similar TWR as the best current engines ie. 10-12). Fuel efficiency and power generation should be the primary concern with future engines which VCEs are the clear winner. Costs eventually would be driven down once mass production is achieved with VCE, especially with modern techniques reducing parts hence easing maintaince costs. As for keeping research for other derivatives, VCE still uses similar cores as normal turbofans and hence in theory could also be repurposed for turboshaft, turboprops and gas turbines designs.
Also technically speaking, on paper if they truely pushed TIT to 2600K with this new VCE and coupled with potentially higher effective bypass ratio you could get similar TWR with a advanced low bypass turbofan optimised for supercruise.
Last edited:
The same factors that drive TWR also drive other performance margins, since most TWR gain is via the compressor and TIT. It’s just a question of how you want to use those performance margins. If you develop VCEs around an older core then you’re not doing any new design work that can be repurposed for turboshafts, turboprops, and gas turbines.
Last edited:
I have a feeling this engine is more like a prototype similar to the F-119-611 not a full-on production F-135 equivalent, overall thrust is a bit low than expected for next generation STOVL multirole aircraft. Assuming this aircraft is going to use an advanced blended body design like current 6th generation aircraft like J-36/J-50(Considering it might enter service near the same time period, perhaps even VCE for final production for maybe 200kN overall lift thrust), it would have higher payload/fuel capacity and much better all aspect stealth but at the cost of higher empty weight compared to a more conventional design like 5th generation aircraft due to larger airframe volume for the same dimension.
I Imagine the new aircraft might look something similar to the X-36 but with the lift fan system and potentially a 2D pivoting nozzle, canards might be required due to CoM requirements with STOVL designs. It might feature a more blended body like the J-XDS for higher internal volume for fuel which is especially important for a STOVL design or maybe do away with canards and just be a pure arrowlike design for better stealth and less complexity.
Afaik it's not next-gen, just a "regular" 5th Gen configuration.
That seems unlikely, if put into service this thing is coming at the earliest in probably 2035ish. New 5th generation designs starting their life cycle at that time period is obsolete and not worth the money invested. IMO, 6th generational level of survivability is required for front line combat in high intensity warfare in the late 2030s/early 2040s which is something I expect for this class of aircraft (SEAD and strike in highly contested airspace).
I would not assume this aircraft to be one that is necessarily destined for active service to begin with.
