LOL, and going after words & grammar used is a sign someone is grasping at straws. Is this the kind of PhDs they churn out these days ?
Prove that no reports of WS10 incidents means PLA classified them instead of there're no incidents at all. Maybe there are far more incidents with AL31 than reported & PLA classified the rest as well ? lol
When you step into the real world, messed up & all you can say is maybe your competitors messed up just as badly too, we just don't know. You're not going to go far.
A more specific answer with the bird strike is that apparently it was serious enough to cause catastrophic failure with the engine, the AL31 to be exact. No comment about the size of the bird, the vector of impact, comparison with other strikes etc ?
When your prof asks about your experiment, all you can say is 'Bad enough to explode' ? Are you sure your a PhD student ?
At least you got the part right about not having any idea with IAF standards which is why I put much more weight on the Indian official report on the sorry state of their AL31 & Flankers which is consistent with what I say about PLA's AL31.
Duh is neither a word nor considered grammar; it is something that usually uneducated and immature people use to assert that something is obvious while they are oblivious to the plethora of complicating factors that sway the issue.
No incidents at all with WS-10A? How stupid do you have to be to think that that's even a possibility? This right here (among many, many, others) disqualifies you as someone knowledgeable enough to carry the conversation. Having no incidents has never happened to any technology in history, not to mention something as complicated as a turbofan engine, and the first operational turbofan of a nation, no less. This assertion is so incredibly stupid that it's like saying that since no one has ever confirmed Sparticus' death, therefore he might still be alive. No incidents with a turbofan engine is impossible (even if the PLAAF claimed that, it'd be overwhelmingly difficult to believe); the only question is how many incidents and how severe? And that is unknown, therefore, not up for comparison.
Don't be funny with the bird strike questions. Bad enough to wreck a jet is the correct and only answer. What did you expect, for someone to give you the impact velocity and kinetic damage numbers? LOL I've never seen a bird strike not wreck a military turbofan engine before and someone like you who's obviously never taken engineering or physics wouldn't know what to do with the numbers anyway. Just so you know, for your questions regarding the severity of the bird strike to make any sense it all, you would be proposing to simulate a similar bird strike on a WS-10A to see if it ends up destroyed, something we all know is not going to happen. Therefore, the WS-10A and AL-31 are not comparable once again and your questions are drivel.
Yes, this is the kind of PhD's they're churning out, the kind who's owning you so badly, you can't even follow how you're getting owned while you look like an idiot to everyone here.
