Lethe
Captain
Given the longstanding relationship, I would expect some consulting work at least.
J-10 Thread IV
- Thread starter Jeff Head
- Start date
Given the longstanding relationship, I would expect some consulting work at least.
Problem with that is CAC is not responsible for this engine or the nozzle. I thought they just designed and manufactured fighters and have nothing to do with engines. Of course Shenyang Liming is part of AVIC and project teams will consult with each other. Maybe Salyut is involved in some stage but I don't think they need Salyut for this. The nozzles are really not that difficult now considering they've been working on it for about a decade already. It's how well integrated the TVC is to flight controls that will have taken the most time.
I'd like to see the WS-10x TVC without the petal covers. Would be nice to compare with those of Al-31 TVC and Izd.30.
I'd like to see the WS-10x TVC without the petal covers. Would be nice to compare with those of Al-31 TVC and Izd.30.
The fact that the nozzles are jagged indicates that they plan on using a similar variant on the J-20 later down the road.
Hyperwarp
Captain
Remember what our good old buddy flateric said long time ago? He said CAC had shown a lot of interest in Saluts TVC implementation and that CAC personnel had made frequent visits to Salut. So I do belive they had consultations. I think it is unlikely they subcontracted the whole thing to Salut since the engine is a WS-10 variant, trying to combine those 2 will be messy. But they certainly would have had consultations, they could have bought patents, hired people from Salut to directly work on the nozzle in China, etc.
The question I have is why did China go with Saluts implementation? They already had ground tested AVEN technology way back 2000 IIRC (or maybe before that). It functioned like the AVEN on F-16 MATV. So why the change? Is one better at re-directing the thrust? Does one have faster respose than the other? Is one heavier than the other?
I wouldn't be surprised there is Russia help in all this. If not from Russian government, it could be from certain Russian experts. Remember the TVC nozzle movement mechanism was shown tested by Jiang using a video game controller, that would be in early 1990s, or 20 years ago. Because of his position, that product must be in pretty mature stage to show to Jiang. Of course the actual nozzle must be a new product.
I see the title of the video is AL-31F. The base of the nuzzle paddles are fixed, TVC is realized by moving the paddles. This is the same principle as the latest Izdeliye 30. Engines on early Pakfa and Su-35, Su-30MKI and Su-30MKM all have a different TVC where the base frame is rotated to control the exhaust.
Isn't Izdeliye 30 from NPO Saturn? I am not familiar of the relationship among the Russian engine plants, is Salyut different from Saturn? Therefor can not share the knowledge that they have no right?
Also, CAC has no expertise in Engine design and production.
Anyways, if there is any collaboration between Russia and China on the TVC, it should be on the state level AVIC and Parent of Saturn, not on the level of CAC and Salyut.
Last edited:
Hi is it possible for CAC to invest in engine development with Salyut instead of state vs state level
Of cooperation your input will be appreciated
Thank you
SinoSoldier
Colonel
Maybe so, but we would have a lot more photos of these markings if every prototype sported one.
Whoops, you're right, that is merely a J-11B testbed for the J-16's radar.
plawolf
Lieutenant General
Calibration markings are most commonly used for accurate movement
and distance referencing and measurement.
That is why they are most commonly seen during missile separations trails, but are also frequently seen for carrier landing and take offs.
Distances can be easily calculated based on the relative size of the markings, and the markings provide accurate, known reference points to measure movement over time between a plane and a fixed or another moving object.
Calibration markings would add little obvious benefit for TVC trails, since there wouldn’t, or shouldn’t be anything close enough to the plane during TVC use to measure against those calibration markings.
and distance referencing and measurement.
That is why they are most commonly seen during missile separations trails, but are also frequently seen for carrier landing and take offs.
Distances can be easily calculated based on the relative size of the markings, and the markings provide accurate, known reference points to measure movement over time between a plane and a fixed or another moving object.
Calibration markings would add little obvious benefit for TVC trails, since there wouldn’t, or shouldn’t be anything close enough to the plane during TVC use to measure against those calibration markings.
Hyperwarp
Captain
Yes, Izd. 30 is from NPO saturn. MMPP Salut and NPO Saturn are different. Kinda like KnAAPO and IAPO. There are 2 hypothesis about the stealth TVC nozzle shown in Russia -
1: The nozzle is NOT destined for the Su-57 and maybe purely targeted to the Chinese market or for export in general.
2: NPO Saturn subcontracted nozzle development to MMPP Salut since they already had all-aspect 3D-TVC tech.
There is no tech corporation between CAC and Saturn whatsoever. Salut is CACs trusted vender. Salut had that all-aspect 3D-TVC technology for sometime now. Even if Saturn has subcontracted Salut for the new nozzle, CAC would have acquired tech from Salut long before that. CAC and Salut connection runs deep.