That's a really old clip.
J-20 5th Gen Fighter Thread IV (Closed to posting)
- Thread starter siegecrossbow
- Start date
- Status
That's a really old clip.
AssassinsMace
Lieutenant General
Never said anything about it was new. It was being discussed in another forum and thought it was interesting.
First of all, sources please. Second, none of us know what the PLAAF has in mind for the J-20. I'm noticing that your posts resemble that of 'challenger', a former member who was banned.
So if you copy your own copy then it's no longer derivative?
The WS-10 series of engines uses the CFM-56 core. It is one of the big Chinese reverse-engineering projects; yet its performance is not comparable to either the F-110 series or the Al-31FN. It is either lacking in power or lacking in durability.
If you are stating that the WS-10A has inputs from the AL-31F series of engines, then so what? Even if it includes the Al-31F engine technology, the fact still remains, the WS-10As are only comparable to the AL-31Fs and not as reliable as the F-110s, with a much lower MTBO.
In the same way, even if they have a ton of F-22 engineering materials available, they cannot create a completely accurate replica capable of replicating every single detail of the F-22.
It's been a while and I haven't been arguing here so I'll have to catch up on what we've been throwing around.
The WS-10 series of engines uses the CFM-56 core. It is one of the big Chinese reverse-engineering projects; yet its performance is not comparable to either the F-110 series or the Al-31FN. It is either lacking in power or lacking in durability.
If you are stating that the WS-10A has inputs from the AL-31F series of engines, then so what? Even if it includes the Al-31F engine technology, the fact still remains, the WS-10As are only comparable to the AL-31Fs and not as reliable as the F-110s, with a much lower MTBO.
In the same way, even if they have a ton of F-22 engineering materials available, they cannot create a completely accurate replica capable of replicating every single detail of the F-22.
It's been a while and I haven't been arguing here so I'll have to catch up on what we've been throwing around.
The core is not the entirety of an engine. Furthermore, from what we've heard it's based on the CFM-56 core. We don't know if it's a direct copy. Keep in mind the CFM-56 is NOT the same as the F110, even if one is derivative of the other. To turn a high bypass turbofan into a military grade jet engine fundamentally requires heavy development and modifications, and this isn't plug and play technology like your computer.
The WS-10A's maintenance problems were related to quality control of production, not design, and last I checked, the WS-10's rated performance was comparable to both the F110 and AL-31. If engine reliability were always fundamental to design then it wouldn't have been possible for the the F110 and AL-31 both to experience major improvements in their MTBO over their product life times.
With regards to the F-22 and materials (assuming this has something to do with the could they simulate an F-22's RCS debate), again you don't need to have the materials on hand or replicate them perfectly. If you know enough about the science and design principles behind the engineering, you can build a very good simulation based on best practice estimates. You also don't need a perfect simulation. Something with a small margin of error is enough to make a huge difference in understanding an adversary and developing countermeasures. This is a simply consequence of physics being the same for everybody.
Last edited:
And that is one of the reasons the Chinese go on with the WS-10A and dump the WS-10 another reason is simply... the Chinese are not satisfied with the WS-10. Make sense?
And your point beings? The WS-10A is comparable to AL-31F, it is actually designed for that, so what is the problem with it? If the chinese actually design with the spec of F-110 and not able to achieve that, then yes, it is a big deal.
In another word... WS-10A work as it was designed.
And in a way, you are still stuck in the era that China actually needed to reverse engineer every other peoples products and not able to come up with their own products. But clearly that don't seemed to be the case, unless everything we have shown here or everything that is in the net are nothing but a big joke to all of us.
F-22 and F-35 are excellent aircrafts, but the fact is... China doesn't need to reverse engineer those and she can come up with their own stealth aircrafts that even the US respected... in the form of J-20 and J-31. Not too sure how those aircrafts performed, and I would not lied to myself or be a big fanboy that the Chinese had surpass or even reach the US standards yet, but I would say that they are damn close.
But of course, people would ask for proof... and references... I must say, I don't have any, but more knowledgeable members in this forum should have something, and I have seen excellent posts with mathematical models here too. So yeah... read up those.
Last edited:
I have also noticed that. hardware is a forum member that releases a lot of info without sources to back it up.
I thought it was an open secret that hardware is challenge lol...
Same habit of making unnecessary new threads, quoting kanwa, even the face palm worthy grammar.
Engineer
Major
That's non sequitur. Figuring out the RCS of F-22 has nothing to do with producing a physical sample through copying and reverse-engineering.
Last edited:
- Status