J-20... The New Generation Fighter III

Much of the recent discussion is regrettable.
The first prototype left Chengdu because you don't do your stall tests nor supersonic tests over a city. The supersonic tests are at altitude so you wouldn't get photographs from the ground even if wall climbers were underneath. And the engines of J-20 are adequate for these tests. Not being able to super cruise means having to use after burners so having minutes rather than hours for the tests. But that is still ample.

Engineer said:

Right now, the factors that are hampering Chinese development of advanced engines are completely unknown. Throughout the years, there have been news about breakthrough in materials, metallurgy, and reliability of the engines themselves. The last unofficial news about WS-15 claimed that progress is smooth and the project is in fact ahead of schedule. Your 2020 date reminds me of a similar projection the West has given for the appearance of the J-20. When it comes down to projection, the value given by the West should be taken with a grain of salt.

Click to expand...

Strangely enough I found this report on engine development for advanced Chinese aircraft engines. Here is the link and a summary

–To address these shortcomings, AVIC is treating engine development as a high priority and plans to invest 10 billion RMB (US$1.53 billion) into jet engine research and development over the next 5 years.

–However, evidence still suggests that AVIC’s engine makers are having trouble maintaining consistent quality control as they scale up production of the WS-10, causing problems with reliability and keeping China’s tactical aircraft heavily reliant on imported Russian engines.

–Key weak points of the Chinese military jet engine industry include: turbine blade production and process standardization.

–Standardization and integration may be the one area in which the costs of China’s ad hoc, eclectic approach to strategic technology development truly manifest themselves. The Soviet defense industrial base failed in precisely this area: talented designers and technicians presided over balkanized design bureaus and irregularly-linked production facilities; lack of standardization and quality control rendered it “less than the sum of the parts.”



You can refute this claims with whatever evidence you can present

This is precisely what I have been talking about. There is no doubt that China has astounded the world with unveiling of J-10B, J-20 and now J-31. As amazing as that is, the engine development ought to be of prime importance to China.

I want China to rise to become a potent superpower, as such, being one, China needs to be able to develop and mass produce engines which are sound in performance, in maintenance and in logistics cycles. These Chinese engines, are not be compared to the Western ones, rather should have quality and performance in line with requirements of the fighter-jets that they would power. The WS-10A's for the J-10Bs, the WS-13s for the JF-17s and the WS-15s for the J-20s. These engines need to have appropriate performance characteristics in accordance with the type of fighter-jet they would power. More so, the methodology and mass production standards and quality control need to be addressed, since any air force, which sees itself as maintaining Air-Dominance over it's air space, would need to have reliable, quality performance engines, which present not only sufficient power, but also durability and ease in logistic cycle.

In order for China to surge ahead in it's quest to defend it's territory, from the likes of nations like Japan, America and Vietnam and so on. It is imperative that China attains mastery over engine development, performance, reliability, durability, production standards, quality control and mass production of it's engines.

NikeX said:

Strangely enough I found this report on engine development for advanced Chinese aircraft engines. Here is the link and a summary

–To address these shortcomings, AVIC is treating engine development as a high priority and plans to invest 10 billion RMB (US$1.53 billion) into jet engine research and development over the next 5 years.

–However, evidence still suggests that AVIC’s engine makers are having trouble maintaining consistent quality control as they scale up production of the WS-10, causing problems with reliability and keeping China’s tactical aircraft heavily reliant on imported Russian engines.

–Key weak points of the Chinese military jet engine industry include: turbine blade production and process standardization.

–Standardization and integration may be the one area in which the costs of China’s ad hoc, eclectic approach to strategic technology development truly manifest themselves. The Soviet defense industrial base failed in precisely this area: talented designers and technicians presided over balkanized design bureaus and irregularly-linked production facilities; lack of standardization and quality control rendered it “less than the sum of the parts.”

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

You can refute this claims with whatever evidence you can present

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

I wouldn't put too much stock on the article by Gabe Collins based on 2nd hand sources . too begin with he is not Turbo machinery expert. he is resource economy specialist and its strategic implication.

Because China doesn't published their Turbo machinery research. Every Dick Tom and Harry can called themselves expert.

It nothing but conjecture, guestimate and collection of hearsay and rumor.

What we know now is there are at least 4 or 5 regiments of J 11B all flying with WS10A and I haven't heard any accident or plane dropping off from the sky

NikeX said:

Strangely enough I found this report on engine development for advanced Chinese aircraft engines. Here is the link and a summary

–To address these shortcomings, AVIC is treating engine development as a high priority and plans to invest 10 billion RMB (US$1.53 billion) into jet engine research and development over the next 5 years.

–However, evidence still suggests that AVIC’s engine makers are having trouble maintaining consistent quality control as they scale up production of the WS-10, causing problems with reliability and keeping China’s tactical aircraft heavily reliant on imported Russian engines.

–Key weak points of the Chinese military jet engine industry include: turbine blade production and process standardization.

–Standardization and integration may be the one area in which the costs of China’s ad hoc, eclectic approach to strategic technology development truly manifest themselves. The Soviet defense industrial base failed in precisely this area: talented designers and technicians presided over balkanized design bureaus and irregularly-linked production facilities; lack of standardization and quality control rendered it “less than the sum of the parts.”

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

You can refute this claims with whatever evidence you can present

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

I remember this article. It was reporting information that we had been hearing on forums for months (or even years) prior to its publication. However, by the time it was published we were beginning to see evidence that they were overcoming those same problems. Note that article is a year old as well, and we're seeing far more regular adoption of the WS-10A.

NikeX said:

Strangely enough I found this report on engine development for advanced Chinese aircraft engines. Here is the link and a summary

–To address these shortcomings, AVIC is treating engine development as a high priority and plans to invest 10 billion RMB (US$1.53 billion) into jet engine research and development over the next 5 years.

–However, evidence still suggests that AVIC’s engine makers are having trouble maintaining consistent quality control as they scale up production of the WS-10, causing problems with reliability and keeping China’s tactical aircraft heavily reliant on imported Russian engines.

–Key weak points of the Chinese military jet engine industry include: turbine blade production and process standardization.

–Standardization and integration may be the one area in which the costs of China’s ad hoc, eclectic approach to strategic technology development truly manifest themselves. The Soviet defense industrial base failed in precisely this area: talented designers and technicians presided over balkanized design bureaus and irregularly-linked production facilities; lack of standardization and quality control rendered it “less than the sum of the parts.”

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

You can refute this claims with whatever evidence you can present

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

How can you have confidence in an article with a figure that contains a text about the turbine blades and the fan blades, as if these are very similar, and with an arrow pointing to the HP compressor? Clearly the writer doesn't know what he is talking about.

NikeX said:

Strangely enough I found this report on engine development for advanced Chinese aircraft engines. Here is the link and a summary

–To address these shortcomings, AVIC is treating engine development as a high priority and plans to invest 10 billion RMB (US$1.53 billion) into jet engine research and development over the next 5 years.

–However, evidence still suggests that AVIC’s engine makers are having trouble maintaining consistent quality control as they scale up production of the WS-10, causing problems with reliability and keeping China’s tactical aircraft heavily reliant on imported Russian engines.

–Key weak points of the Chinese military jet engine industry include: turbine blade production and process standardization.

–Standardization and integration may be the one area in which the costs of China’s ad hoc, eclectic approach to strategic technology development truly manifest themselves. The Soviet defense industrial base failed in precisely this area: talented designers and technicians presided over balkanized design bureaus and irregularly-linked production facilities; lack of standardization and quality control rendered it “less than the sum of the parts.”

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

You can refute this claims with whatever evidence you can present

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

A lot of what they say is not of substance "they have had issues" – of course they've had issues, everyone does. Including US (see F-35 propulsion fiasco). As to specific problems in turbine blade or process standardisation, maybe. But the fact is SAC produced flankers since the second batch of J-11B have all been equipped with WS-10.
Andrew Erickson also says china will be able to produce turbofans for 5th gen fighters within 5 to 10 years, which is consistent with all predictions for WS-15.

Besides you fail to mention this final conclusion, despite the issues which Erickson does mention (most of these issues were of mid 2000s, and many of which have since to be solved, given mass production of WS-10):


"Robust aircraft development and production programs plus a desire to move into the 5th generation aircraft space where the Russians may be reluctant to supply later model engines such as the 117S create powerful motivators for achieving a greater measure of domestic jet engine production self-sufficiency. It is likely that the next 2-3 years will bring surprising breakthroughs in China’s ability to produce high performance jet engines for tactical aircraft independently, with Chinese production of reliable top-notch engines perhaps 5-10 years away."

We need to give Erickson his props. He is one of the better PLA watchers out there in the west. His conclusions are fair, most of which I agree with. But some of his details are somewhat skewed, and he presents some past problems as present issues currently faced which is obviously not the case especially wrt WS-10 production. So basically nikex, citing his article basically just says that you agree that in a few years china will be able to produce world class engines independently and reliably.

I think that is a slightly optimistic view on things, it may take a little longer, but you're definitely on the right side of things.

Hyperwarp said:

maws?

Click to expand...

Could very well be. I was hoping more knowledgeable members would chip in and more or less confirm it by the bump's shape and location. Hehe...

China is behind in adopting automation and possibly in using modern design tools. I think it has more to do with labor cost them access to the technology thought. Specialized casting technologies are going to be obsolete in a few years anyways with EBM and SLM replacing them. The truth is that the manufacturing technology defines what can be produced and may of the things which in the part required years of experience have now been integrated into self contained automated units. China does have a habit of buying obsolete production lines and machines from the first world rather then investing in the newest tech. Some of the manufacturing tech with china is producing is first rate but these seems be a reluctance to invest in the top tier of foreign tech and instead they would rather purchase inferior but cheaper domestic units. I suppose that is a good idea if you want to develop your manufacturing base but is does unnecessarily hobble the ability to make first rate products. Still China has access to far more advance manufacturing technology then existed when the f-22 was designed...

Longaxe said:

China is behind in adopting automation and possibly in using modern design tools. I think it has more to do with labor cost them access to the technology thought. Specialized casting technologies are going to be obsolete in a few years anyways with EBM and SLM replacing them. The truth is that the manufacturing technology defines what can be produced and may of the things which in the part required years of experience have now been integrated into self contained automated units. China does have a habit of buying obsolete production lines and machines from the first world rather then investing in the newest tech. Some of the manufacturing tech with china is producing is first rate but these seems be a reluctance to invest in the top tier of foreign tech and instead they would rather purchase inferior but cheaper domestic units. I suppose that is a good idea if you want to develop your manufacturing base but is does unnecessarily hobble the ability to make first rate products. Still China has access to far more advance manufacturing technology then existed when the f-22 was designed...

Click to expand...

I don't know what are you talking about All the turbine blade manufacturing is done by 5 or even 7 axis CNC machine and For your information China and Taiwan corner 50% of worldwide CNC machinery market and the top 5 or 7 CNC manufacturer are either Taiwanese or Chinese

China was prevented from buying CNC machinery in 60's and 70's when the western world and japan practically has a lock on these machinery But in the recent year China slowly taking over this segment of machinery. I think you are outdated by 30 years! So much so that CNC industry in US is dying due to lack of export

I remember clearly Martian put out excellent post on this forum exactly about this CNC industry


Issues relevant to procurements necessary to support critical defense systems.
Based on data received from survey respondents and other sources, BIS concludes the following:
• Foreign availability of certain five axis simultaneous control mills, mill/turns, and machining centers controlled by ECCN 2B001.b.2 (but not grinders controlled by ECCN 2B001.c.2) exists to China and Taiwan, which both have an indigenous capability to produce five axis simultaneous control machine tools with linear positioning accuracies comparable to the United States;
• U.S. export license processing times, especially to China, are longer than those of other Wassenaar Arrangement members, placing U.S. exporters at a competitive disadvantage;
• Compared with other exporting countries of this technology, the United States is losing market share to its European and Asian competitors, particularly South Korea;
1
• U.S. producers of five axis simultaneous control machine tools, while currently profitable, face an uncertain future for their five axis machine tool product lines with imports outpacing domestic sales and increasing customer demand (commercial and U.S. Government) for foreign machine tools;
• Lack of U.S. training programs has created a shortage in skilled labor in the machine tool industry, which threatens to impede domestic ability to produce machine tools and manufacture complex products; and
• A potential vulnerability exists with regard to sensitive data (e.g., designs) stored in the computerized numerical controllers (CNCs) of machine tools connected to the Internet.
Accordingly, BIS recommends that the U.S. Government (USG):
• Amend the EAR to facilitate the export of five axis simultaneous control mills, mill/turns, and machining centers of certain precision accuracies controlled by ECCN 2B001.b.2 with foreign availability to controlled countries under license exception or similar-type authorization, and work with international partners (via the Wassenaar