J-20 5th Gen Fighter Thread VI

[jobjed]

If AVIC did reorganize designations (not that I don't believe you, but it might be good to have a source on this) it might make sense if the WS-10C is actually the one we recognized as the 132-137 kN WS-10B. Maybe the original WS-10 with all the problems is now the WS-10A, and the 127 kN WS-10A that eventually managed to go into production has become the WS-10B. The WS-10X doesn't seem to be a real designation, but one invented by the bbs community to delineate the WS-10s with sawtooth black nozzles from regular WS-10s. As I recall, the reason they went with X was because X is a stand-in for the fact that no one knows what variant of WS-10 is being used. Similarly, we may not have a designation for the WS-10 testing TVC until (or if) that engine goes into production. I believe it was Gongke who said something about sawtooth nozzles and TVC not being no big deal and that they could be added pretty readily in a forum Q&A, which might imply that engines equipped with them aren't deemed to be significantly different enough to receive their own call signs.

EDIT: Another possibility is that the early test variant is still the WS-10, while the WS-10A now refers to an early production model with downrated thrust as makeshift solution, perhaps the one that was associated with the 122 kN thrust figure we used to see around, and WS-10B now refers to a version that resolved most of the problems with the early A, which might be the "black" Taihang and also the variant associated with the 127 kN thrust figure.

Before 2016, there were WS-10B, WS-10B1, and WS-10B2, the former for J-10s and latter two for dual-engine fighters. After reorganisation, all subvariants are denoted purely with letters from the English alphabet and old forms of denoting like 1, 2, I, II, V, 乙, 甲, etc have been retired. The engines on the J-16 are WS-10Ds, which we've never heard of until gongke told us about the designation.

So now the WS-10A and WS-10B are variants for the J-10 series. The WS-10A never achieved any certification, only a few test flights to set a technical baseline for certification if a need to do so arose (the one that flew around on J-10 prototype 1004 I think). WS-10B is in better shape and is undergoing certification albeit slowly because neither the PLA nor AVIC have a need to hurry it up. WS-10D is closely related to the WS-10B but modified for use on dual-engine J-16s. I think WS-10Cs are to WS-10As as WS-10Ds are to WS-10Bs but don't quote me on that because gongke hasn't clarified what the WS-10C is.

WS-10IPE, formerly known as WS-10J, is the 14t variant that was proposed by Liming who wanted to apply for official state project status with support from the PLA. The PLA gathered their own experts to evaluate the WS-10J project and found it was risky as hell and refused to go along with Liming in applying for project approval. But they did give Liming some funds to continue development and pledged to put in some orders if Liming managed to get it up and running. Basically this means the WS-10J/WS-10IPE project is not fully state funded and is a Liming venture with limited PLA support because the PLA didn't have enough confidence to put their asses on the line to support Liming's project application.



The censored gongke thread I talked about here was actually cached on my browser so I screenshotted the whole thing and saved the screenshots BUT my computer is dead right now and my HDD is inaccessible so I'll have to get my motherboard replaced before I can read back on what gongke said. There was more information about the WS-10J and other designations.

 

[by78]

WS-10IPE, formerly known as WS-10J, is the 14t variant that was proposed by Liming who wanted to apply for official state project status with support from the PLA. The PLA gathered their own experts to evaluate the WS-10J project and found it was risky as hell and refused to go along with Liming in applying for project approval. But they did give Liming some funds to continue development and pledged to put in some orders if Liming managed to get it up and running. Basically this means the WS-10J/WS-10IPE project is not fully state funded and is a Liming venture with limited PLA support because the PLA didn't have enough confidence to put their asses on the line to support Liming's project application.

Thanks for the clarification.

Did you mean to say WS-10IPE is for the PLAN (Navy), as opposed to PLA? The screen capture says the IPE is for '舰载机’, meaning shipborne fighter, which can only refer to J-15.

 

[jobjed]

Thanks for the clarification.

Did you mean to say WS-10IPE is for the PLAN (Navy), as opposed to PLA? The screen capture says the IPE is for '舰载机’, which at the time – and likely still – refers to J-15.

Gongke says it 原来准备舰载机用的, or was being prepared for use on carrier fighters. Note the past tense. That suggests the project no longer has a naval focus. Regardless, I type PLA as a shorthand for PLAAF/PLANAF because I'm lazy .

 

[siegecrossbow]

Let's take the WS-10 discussions to the engine thread please.

 

[Icmer]

p. 62 of the 2018 DoD report to Congress on China's military progress:

China is having difficulty with the engines and radars for these aircraft.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

This is in reference to the J-20 and the FC-31. Really, China is having difficulty with the radars?

 

[Figaro]

p. 62 of the 2018 DoD report to Congress on China's military progress:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

This is in reference to the J-20 and the FC-31. Really, China is having difficulty with the radars?

I think it is mostly referring to the FC-31 here ... which is somewhat true given its smoky Russian engines (I'm not sure about the radar stuff). But then again, this report is known for making a bunch of errors ... so I wouldn't be surprised. Most of the information is probably open sourced anyway.

 

[Blitzo]

p. 62 of the 2018 DoD report to Congress on China's military progress:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

This is in reference to the J-20 and the FC-31. Really, China is having difficulty with the radars?

Standard "difficulty with subsystems" blanket statement derived from outdated assumptions. Don't go looking to the DoD reports for any worthwhile information on PLA developments.

 

[latenlazy]

Standard "difficulty with subsystems" blanket statement derived from outdated assumptions. Don't go looking to the DoD reports for any worthwhile information on PLA developments.

The DoD report has, historically, not had a good track record with reading the PLA’s technological developments, as can be easily observed by reading past reports and seeing how well they hold up to present circumstances.

 

[Inst]

What the hell are you talking about? Who's talking about population?? You couldn't have thought I meant China would dominate the world by out-populating everyone else, could you? That China is rising quickly has never been truer than it is now, hence the panic in the West with the trade wars, etc...

And? Historically speaking, China has fallen progressively behind the West since antiquity. Qin Shihuang's destruction of the Sinitic Kingdoms also entailed the destruction of Mohist proto-science, that China passed the West during the Tang was not it was superior, but that its Dark Age was relatively short and shallow.

Each of the barbarian invasions since the Northern and Southern Dynasties have gotten worse. The Mongols were very close to committing straight genocide against the Han Chinese, and the Mongol cataclysm destroyed the Song Enlightenment. The Manchus, in contrast to the Mongols, were semi-Sinified and forced a backward, overly traditionalist interpretation of the Confucian classics down China's throat. The Japanese were semi-Westernized and if they had succeeded, and without American intervention they would have done so, they would have been able to wipe out China as a cultural entity, given their modernized status.

All I see here are the old classic Sino-Triumphalism, which destroyed every Chinese state in the past. To date, China's population mass has allowed it to survive foreign conquest, albeit often worse-for-wear, but that population advantage is about to end. That's the problem with Chinese chauvinists in general. You'll brag endlessly about your 5,000 years of history when the culture is backwards and the society is garbage. China's situation has improved dramatically, but to let you guys loose and in charge is not unlike Wilhelm II's disposal of Bismarck.

The current success of China is not so much a matter of civilizational inevitability--the end of China as a culture and civilization was in sight for the modernizers of the ROC period-- but a matter of human agency, of the choices made by both Chinese and non-Chinese actors. If you jingoists had gotten your way, the KMT would have won the Chinese Civil War and China would now be somewhere between India and Turkey; one a failed state that failed to modernize despite 70 years of peace, tranquility, and democracy, the other a failed state that tried to modernize and then got stuck in the Middle-Income-Trap with a bevy of undereducated peasants putting populists in power.

 

[manqiangrexue]

And? Historically speaking, China has fallen progressively behind the West since antiquity. Qin Shihuang's destruction of the Sinitic Kingdoms also entailed the destruction of Mohist proto-science, that China passed the West during the Tang was not it was superior, but that its Dark Age was relatively short and shallow.

Each of the barbarian invasions since the Northern and Southern Dynasties have gotten worse. The Mongols were very close to committing straight genocide against the Han Chinese, and the Mongol cataclysm destroyed the Song Enlightenment. The Manchus, in contrast to the Mongols, were semi-Sinified and forced a backward, overly traditionalist interpretation of the Confucian classics down China's throat. The Japanese were semi-Westernized and if they had succeeded, and without American intervention they would have done so, they would have been able to wipe out China as a cultural entity, given their modernized status.

All I see here are the old classic Sino-Triumphalism, which destroyed every Chinese state in the past. To date, China's population mass has allowed it to survive foreign conquest, albeit often worse-for-wear, but that population advantage is about to end. That's the problem with Chinese chauvinists in general. You'll brag endlessly about your 5,000 years of history when the culture is backwards and the society is garbage. China's situation has improved dramatically, but to let you guys loose and in charge is not unlike Wilhelm II's disposal of Bismarck.

The current success of China is not so much a matter of civilizational inevitability--the end of China as a culture and civilization was in sight for the modernizers of the ROC period-- but a matter of human agency, of the choices made by both Chinese and non-Chinese actors. If you jingoists had gotten your way, the KMT would have won the Chinese Civil War and China would now be somewhere between India and Turkey; one a failed state that failed to modernize despite 70 years of peace, tranquility, and democracy, the other a failed state that tried to modernize and then got stuck in the Middle-Income-Trap with a bevy of undereducated peasants putting populists in power.

I understand that with your natural defeatism that you have an immense desire to avoid confrontation but you should at least have the courage to reply to me when you answer to my posts. Last time, you oddly addressed Blitzo when answering to me and this time, you just purposefully cut off the headings hoping I don't get a quote alert and end up letting you slide. When you talk to someone, look at him, not at the ground.

That said, everything you said still reflects a horrible inability on your part to read and understand that having periods of weakness does not disagree with always rising back up. You continue to provide "evidence" as if you're arguing against some claim that China has always been the most powerful nation in the world. Your entire rant is you imagining that argument, and then debunking your own imaginary argument and then adding some things you imagine would have happened to China had a set of imaginary events took place. Please, understand the point, because you're the last kid left back right now:

Through all the empires of the world that have risen and fallen, only China has gotten back up every time instead of fallen to pieces to be remembered in history. Through 5,000 years, every Chinese dynasty was able to take the shambles of the one before it and build itself back up to the top of the world. China is the only country today that was an ancient superpower many times and is rising yet again as a modern superpower today. No other entity has ever done that; every one else had a period of success (Persian Empire, Hun Empire, Roman Empire, Ottoman Empire, British Empire, etc...) and then never gotten back up again once that fell apart. That's the big picture; don't go on a little cockroach rant blowing cherry-picked details out of proportion and then adding your imagination to it as if you're actually arguing against me.