I certainly won't consider it out of the realm of possibility, but I do think that being equipped with WS-19 would be the most extreme interpretation of that.
As always, I treat "engine progress/milestones" with some trepidation.
J-35A fighter (PLAAF) + FC-31 thread
- Thread starter ACuriousPLAFan
- Start date
I certainly won't consider it out of the realm of possibility, but I do think that being equipped with WS-19 would be the most extreme interpretation of that.
As always, I treat "engine progress/milestones" with some trepidation.
They figured we were deciphering the bread crumbs simply too fast
Not every new jet that rolls off US assembly lines use F135 either.
There's nothing that indicates there is more risk behind a new engine, that's an assumption without much to back it. More likely, it's an issue of availability and demand.
I mean, the WS-13 family suddenly equipping a completely different type of nozzles with a completely different serrations pattern, layered structure, and somehow suddenly requiring a vent like the WS-10 family seems like a pretty far reach too.
Modern PLA fighters/turbofans had no precedents of an engine family radically changing the nozzles like that. Even the WS-10 family retained the slits throughout every iteration and variant, and no engine family has ever just suddenly employed a radically different petals and/or radically modified the structure between the fuselage and the nozzle like the addition of a vent (WS-10A and B are the same, C is just a serrated version of B with the same amount of petals (18), and D, although has 16 petals, still retained the slits).
Actually that seems not strange, considering we've seen WS-10s with a variety of different nozzles as well over the years.
Between the likelihood of them being WS-13E or WS-21s with different nozzles, versus straight up being WS-19, I would consider the former to be far more likely than the latter.
I'm not going to rule out the latter, but an appropriate amount of a wet towel should probably be applied whenever one considers the possibility of a "Chinese engine development milestone" if there are no concrete indicators from the usual grapevine (e.g.: we all accepted J-20A flew with two WS-15s back in mid 2023 even though we didn't have clear definitive pictures, and that was due to the grapevine confirming it in a concrete manner).
We've been through the "is this a new engine" matter too many times with too many false starts over the last two decades, such that the automatic immune reaction to the suggestion of "is this indicative of an engine development milestone" should probably be one of significant caution, until concretely indicated otherwise.
...which I have pointed out why that doesn't fit this case exactly.
More likely? Sure. Far more likely? No.
They could very well not be WS-19s, that's fine, but I'm not budging on the fact that those engines are not WS-13E/21s.
It doesn't need to fit the case exactly. There is no particular precedent which requires an engine nozzle's petal size or count to be consistent across an engine's lineage. What the differences among the WS-10 variants demonstrates is that engine nozzles are not a definitive indicator of differences between engine lineages overall.
Until we have indicators to suggest that any of those aircraft may be flying with WS-19s (or indeed, any strong indicators to definitively state that any J-35/A has even made a maiden flight with two WS-19s to begin with equal to the noise made for J-20A flying with two WS-15s back in mid 2023), I think we are obliged to treat any engines we see as variations of WS-13E/21s.
For example, if tomorrow they showed up at Zhuhai with a J-35A flying with new stealthy 2D TVC nozzles on their engines, the natural inevitable response should be to assume that they are a WS-13E/21 rather than WS-19 until indicated otherwise.
The prerequisites should at least include structural changes on the area between the nozzles and fuselage. It's a significant change, to say the least, much more big of a deal than petal variance.
In that case it's unprecedented - WS-10s retained the slits throughout every iteration and variant.
Funnily enough, the defining trait of the WS-10 family are the slits.
There was never any indication of them having 2D TVC somewhere down the line, unlike the WS-19. I wouldn't say that's a good example.
Hang on. CAC is notoriously less secretive than SAC in terms of things like this. Plus, WS-19 is significantly less impactful than what the WS-15 is to the PLA or even Chinese aviation in general. I wouldn't say that's a valid comparison.
We already have multiple insiders either saying outright that has already happened, or things that strongly suggest so (e.g. saying the complete version of the J-35/A will be in service next year, which strongly suggest that they've already flown it and is testing right now).
My point is that nozzles should be considered divorced from the actual engine identity to begin with, unless otherwise indicated.
In past years, the identity of Al-31 and WS-10 and even one set of new engine nozzles on J-20 whose identity we still do not fully know, were all varyingly misidentified either as WS-10 or WS-15 before being brought back down to earth.
I think it is a valid comparison, because WS-19 is of a similar technological pedigree to WS-15, and considering it will power both the PLAN's 5th generation naval fighter and the PLAAF's new second type of 5th gen fighter, it is still a notable development.
Furthermore, as a new high performance fighter engine and one that is the "intended powerplant" for J-35/A, it automatically is treated with the same kind of seriousness as WS-15 is.
It does no harm to us to have opinions fall on the more cautious side of the fence, yet it presents heightened expectations and risk of predictive overreach and "overoptimism" if opinions fall onto the other side of the fence.
Ultimately I agree that it is possible the engine you're talking about (or indeed, any of the engines shown) might plausibly be WS-19.
But I am highly opposed to the idea of using words suggesting it is "likely" because it presents the perils of overreach and circulating an idea that becomes entertained which then has to be dialed back.
If someone like Yankee tomorrow straight up says "one of the J-35As at Zhuhai was powered by WS-19" then great, let's call it. Without that, then we should approach the idea with meekness.
By the way, do you remember by post a few weeks ago, where I told you I have satellite images showing three J-31 (now J-35A) at SAC??