Thx for your reply tidalwave
J-20 5th Gen Fighter Thread VI
- Thread starter siegecrossbow
- Start date
- Status
So, are WS-10X equipped J-20s going to enter batch production? Do we know the results compared to the previous AL-31F engines? Is it going to enter the same production phase as the J-11B? Thanks.
China and Russia aren't really close allies ... it's more like a marriage of inconvenience if you will. It's very difficult for the former to cozy up to Russia, knowing that it stole hundreds of thousands of square kilometers of Chinese territory (not to mention its permeated cessation of Mongolia)
Last edited:
Now that you've mentioned it, the ventral fins were cropped out of the original photo. We won't know for certain until more photos are leaked.
antiterror13
Brigadier
it is just a matter of time that the land return to China
There's still going to be more squeezed out of turbofans for sure. But at the moment, tweaks to bypass and compression ratios and inlet sizes are varied to play with the performance parameters. I'm certain airforces will be investing in turbofans for a long time to come, just suggesting that there is a whole lot more beyond the mainstream equipment when it comes to military hardware. These projects will eventually change the entire framework of things. 5th gen as we know it, is a limited breed. I trust the decisions in cancelling F-22s and approving F-35s for so many nations, was a realisation of the eventual limitations to these platforms. No doubt USA, China, and Russia are all developing methods to counter stealth and thinking of ways to fill the role in the quickly changing dynamics of aerial warfare. Electronics are improving so quickly, the F-35 doesn't need to be a super agile manoeuvrable fighter at all. Having said that, I'm not trying to undermine the importance of these fighters at all.
117S is an interim engine in the truest sense. I remember reading somewhere a long time ago with an article comparing the fuel efficiency of Russian and american engines. Heat management was also compared (think it was f-16 forums). The Russian engines were nowhere near the performance of even legacy P&W or GEs. We also all know about the maintenance requirements and MTBF rates. WS15 will be much better for the J-20 than 117 variants or WS10 variants, provided similar if not better efficiency and reliability. 117s and 117 are also considered far from ideal by the Russians too. China is fortunately learning much from Soviet technology, absorbed many engineers and scientists, and now the cooperation with Ukraine.
plawolf
Lieutenant General
People who say or imply China has kind of insurmountable problem with engine tech are being incredibly naive or wilfully disingenuous.
Firstly, engine tech investment is cumulative and ever improving, and there is very limited crossover between military turbofans and commercial airliner engines, not that there is much in the way of ToT on even civilian turbofans anyways.
All of this means China has had to catch up the hard way with extremely limited avenues to gain and absorb world leading tech to shorten that learning curve.
Secondly, it is like comparing apples to oranges to compare current Chinese engine tech to cutting edge western engine tech, because cutting edge western engine tech is a result of decades more cumulative investment and research. So frankly there would be something very wrong with the West's engine industry if China could catch up to them in a fraction of the time and monies spent with extremely limited ToT to aid the Chinese effort.
A far fairer comparison would be to compare Chinese turbofans with western turbofans developed and fielded a similar number of years after the introduction of turbofan engines. But such comparisons would not look favourable on the west, which is why such comparisons are never made in the west.
Even if you take the most pessimistic projected service entry date for the WS15 and compare the length of time from introduction of the WS10 to that, it would still compare very favourably to the length of time from service entry of the F100 to F119 for example.
Yes, China is currently behind the west in military engine tech, but it is making up ground incredibly fast, and doing far better than the west at a comparable stage during their own turbofan development history. Thus it is utterly nonsensical to draw any sort of negative conclusions about Chinese engine tech development, never mind the quasi-racist theories about China having some sort of inherent inability to master engine tech.
Chinese engine tech is only behind in comparison to the break-neck progress China has been making in other fields. But it makes zero sense to disparage China based on that.
It would be like trying to argue that Rafale Nadel can't play tennis because he doesn't win as many grand slams on grass as he does on clay. Utterly nonsensical.
Firstly, engine tech investment is cumulative and ever improving, and there is very limited crossover between military turbofans and commercial airliner engines, not that there is much in the way of ToT on even civilian turbofans anyways.
All of this means China has had to catch up the hard way with extremely limited avenues to gain and absorb world leading tech to shorten that learning curve.
Secondly, it is like comparing apples to oranges to compare current Chinese engine tech to cutting edge western engine tech, because cutting edge western engine tech is a result of decades more cumulative investment and research. So frankly there would be something very wrong with the West's engine industry if China could catch up to them in a fraction of the time and monies spent with extremely limited ToT to aid the Chinese effort.
A far fairer comparison would be to compare Chinese turbofans with western turbofans developed and fielded a similar number of years after the introduction of turbofan engines. But such comparisons would not look favourable on the west, which is why such comparisons are never made in the west.
Even if you take the most pessimistic projected service entry date for the WS15 and compare the length of time from introduction of the WS10 to that, it would still compare very favourably to the length of time from service entry of the F100 to F119 for example.
Yes, China is currently behind the west in military engine tech, but it is making up ground incredibly fast, and doing far better than the west at a comparable stage during their own turbofan development history. Thus it is utterly nonsensical to draw any sort of negative conclusions about Chinese engine tech development, never mind the quasi-racist theories about China having some sort of inherent inability to master engine tech.
Chinese engine tech is only behind in comparison to the break-neck progress China has been making in other fields. But it makes zero sense to disparage China based on that.
It would be like trying to argue that Rafale Nadel can't play tennis because he doesn't win as many grand slams on grass as he does on clay. Utterly nonsensical.
For a technology that tests the upper limits of what's physically possible with complex mechanics and has such a long testing cadence, it shouldn't be surprising that China can't advance at the lightning pace in this field as it has been able to in others.
I also hate how some journalists make engine manufacturing sound so simple when only three nations (including China) have the capability to develop and manufacture high-thrust military turbofan engines for fighters.
Those Ventral fins aren't going away as long as the J-20 is in its present configuration,,, they are there for a number of very sound aerodynamic reasons,,, even if China built the J-20 next week with the 117S with OVT,, I wouldn't take them off......
Depending on how one defines "high thrust", one should also include UK, France and Japan to that list. And if we lower the standard a bit, Germany would be able to design and develop one as well all by itself (even if it doesn't have engines 100% their own ), and lowering it further, possibly Italy, Sweden Canada and India. And if we set the treshold low enough, even Iran could get on the list. Though in their example it's really stretching it that reverse engineered turbojets for F-5 (and possibly F-4) are high thrust. They're not turbofans for sure, but if one wanted to, one could make turbofan variants.
Last edited:
- Status