What would be the reasoning to go with the WS-10 over the WS-15? Isn't the WS-15 an across the board improvement? Given that the J-20 is using the WS-10 only as an interim engine until the WS-15 is fully adopted into service. Or is this an instance of "different application, different needs"?
H-20 bomber (with H-X, JH-XX)
- Thread starter Deino
- Start date
More likely that the H-20 (or maybe we should just call it "H-XX") will firstly use the non-afterburning WS-10 during prototyping and initial LRIP stages, followed by transitioning to the non-afterburning WS-15 once the H-XX enters serial production.
Similar to the cases of J-36 and J-XDS - It does make sense for them to use WS-10, given that the WS-10 is already in active service for 10+ years and has a proven track record by now. The WS-15, meanwhile, is still under its (should be final by now) testing and verification stages, and will only enter active service with the J-20A in 2025 at the earliest.
When talking about aircraft engines (which can be seen as the "heart" of any aircraft), it's always better to go with the safer and proven option, especially when everything else on those warplanes are brand new.
Last edited:
maddogy4645
New Member
I would not be surprised that the project is delayed due to new ambitious requirements. PLA needs a large stealth aerial refuelling tanker. Also why not use 6 turbofan engines and up its size to make it a “mother ship” hovering in the middle of the Pacific Ocean.
Thanks for the kind reply
I just understood the comment I replied to as such that the H-20/H-XX may end up with 4x WS-10s in active service. Which confused me, given the progress made with the WS-15.
But in the context of prototypes it surely makes much more sense to me, given that interim engines have been observed with the J-20, Y-20, Su-57 and others as well.
I think it just made sense to go with WS-10 since the non-afterburner version takes time to develop and get it to install on H-20. At least that's where the rumors point to. I think for H-20, thrust is not a huge issue. It's more important for them to get a variant in there that's fuel efficient and connected with power generation vs higher thrust.
Well, we may very well end up with 4x WS-10 in active service since it takes additional effort to do the non-afterburner version.Thanks for the kind reply
I just understood the comment I replied to as such that the H-20/H-XX may end up with 4x WS-10s in active service. Which confused me, given the progress made with the WS-15.
But in the context of prototypes it surely makes much more sense to me, given that interim engines have been observed with the J-20, Y-20, Su-57 and others as well.
you need something that's not too expensive and attritable and stealthy and launch able from carrier for the future combat scenario.
It might simply be a matter of production capacity. 4 x large "fighter" engines over a significant number of airframes is a lot of engines, with WS10 demand winding down in the fighter sector as J-20 switches to WS15 and J10/16 production (presumably) wind down, there will be capacity on the WS10 lines that simply isn't available for WS15.
This testing platform was seen in early 2023. Engine dimension clearly indicate a medium thrust bypass machine. so it can be medium bypass WS-10 or WS-15 derivates. why China would need such an engine for anything other than stealth bomber.
both WS-10 and WS-15 have different locations..
Shenyang also ramping up WS-20 production.
AECC right now have very large/widespread supply chain of gas turbine propulsion with multiple suppliers on single component.
Speaking of the engines, and assuming that the H-XX is indeed powered by 4 high-thrust low/medium-bypass non-afterburning (AB) turbofan engines in similar flying wing configurations as the B-2:
Even better would be if (or hopefully, when) the H-XX has the non-AB variant of WS-10 swapped with the non-AB variant of WS-15 upon entering serial production stages.
Let's say that the WS-15 has the same performance parameters as the F119 that powers the F-22, which means a military/dry thrust of around 105-110KN. That would equal to about 420-440kN of thrust from having four of them onboard.
In retrospect, the F118s on the B-2 (which is the non-afterburning variant of the F110) has a thrust of 77-85kN each, meaning a combined thrust of 308-340kN.
Needless to say, the H-XX could indeed be quite larger and have considerably heavier MTOW (200+ tons) than even the B-2.
Apart from what you've mentioned (power generation, radar, EW, computing systems etc), that also means a much larger internal volume for bigger/more fuel tanks (meaning greater ranges and loitering durations in the theater of war), plus longer and deeper (main) IWBs for carrying large ballistic/hypersonic missiles with strike ranges of around 2000-4000 kilometers.
Might even open the possibility of deriving a stealth tanker variant from the original combat variant of the H-XX, though that's still somewhat on the hypothetical side of things.
Last edited:
Couldn't it have been the ws-20?