Still, do you really need to go the path of F-22 to achieve that ?
J-20 5th Gen Fighter Thread VIII
- Thread starter Blitzo
- Start date
Still, do you really need to go the path of F-22 to achieve that ?
It is confirmed via simulation that axisymmetric nozzles can never reach the same level of RCS reduction as rectangular nozzles, especially at lower frequencies. All else being equal, the trade off between a few percentage of thrust vs orders of magnitude better rear aspect RCS is worthwhile. In the J-20A's particular case, however, one can make the case that maturity is more important and getting the WS-15 ready ASAP is primarly design objective.
But why discussing this again and again like trying to feed a dead horse? I almost reminds me to the repeated attempts by "Inst" to explain us why CAC should develop a tail-less J-20 and why this one should be better!
This all may be, but it is useless, since we know, CAC has no intention to integrate a flat 2D-nozzle. Al such this discussion is at best academic ...
confusion bro ... interim WS-10C engines ?? that too in brackets .. where is WS-15 engine then
J-20A serial 2051 flew with WS-10s.
It has always been an open question to me whether J-20A would enter service with WS-10s or WS-15s -- i.e.: the possibility of either possibility should have been considered as viable, so this shouldn't be a huge surprise if it is true.
That said this is worth awaiting further information on, as always.
Isn't WS-15 especially designed for J-20? if they are just gonna use WS-10s anyway what was the point in developing WS-15?
Well, WS-15 is an engine one of whose primary applications will be for J-20 (specifically J-20A), yes.
Why do you think that J-20A using WS-10 means that there are questions about the purpose of developing WS-15?
After all, the immediate follow on questions would include:
- do we believe J-20A will use WS-10s forever?
- do we believe WS-10 and WS-15 have equal performance? (Or that WS-15 does not have superior performance)
- do we believe that using WS-10 implies anything about WS-15s developmental trajectory?
- do we believe it was reasonable to assume that J-20A should naturally enter service with WS-15s, when considering that the first J-20A prototype was powered by WS-10s?
This is all fairly basic stuff imo and should've been rather obvious to everyone the moment that we learned J-20A serial 2051 was powered by WS-10s, when it first flew in late 2022.
What's the quality of the source, and more importantly where in the thread do they mention the powerplant being used?
The Weibo post in question did not comment on the type of engine used though, i.e. they never confirmed whether it uses WS-10Cs or not. That's just a guess.
However, if the image attached really is a J-20A that's in service, if you look at the engine nozzles you can see between the nozzles and the fuselage there is a collar that's in a different colour, consistent with the WS-10C, and the nozzles divergent section doesn't seems to match up with the current photos of WS-15s. However, this could definitely be due to:
- the collar is just a image relic due to the absolute butchering that's done to the image
- this isn't really the most accurate way to gauge the engine type with how wide the nozzle opens. It's taking off, so the nozzles may just be opening a bit. I could just be wrong.
These are just really weak guesses based on that image. I wouldn't be so sure about WS-10Cs being used, although it definitely is very likely.
Edit: Honestly, I'm probably coping here, but what's the probability that some of the J-20As uses WS-10Cs while some uses WS-15 for this particular brigade?
Last edited:
The idea of introducing J-20A with WS-10s initially is not unreasonable, but the idea of introducing them at the same time with J-20As also powered by WS-15 doesn't make sense.
This entire story should be challenged from the ground up:
- who is making the claim of J-20A being in service to begin with and what is their credibility
- on what basis is any claim being made about this supposed unit's powerplants (i.e. is it from the original source stating it or is it from other people looking at that disfigured photo and making their own conclusions)
If we don't have answers to those two questions then imo it's not worth thinking much more beyond it.