In every military matter logistics is everything, actually. The USN took years to upgrade the engines on their F-14s.
J-15 carrier fighter thread
- Thread starter Jeff Head
- Start date
There is not that much logistics in a small fleet of carrier jets, especially when you compare the limited stock of available imported engines.
But if your jet is underpowered in naval use, every incident is 50 feet away from a catastrophe.
When it happens, every signature that has chosen an underpowered engine will be personally responsible. And it means they're damn sure their reasons are solid enough, and the chances of being questioned are lower this way.
This is just a bureaucracy 101.
The J-15s use the same engine solution as the Su-33s they’re based off of so I’m not sure where you’re getting the idea that they’re “underpowered”.
...as Su-33 is underpowered as well, as it was a transitory jet only. It's directly the reason why they were replaced in Russian use by a lighter MiG-29K with substantially higher TWR, esp. at take off. Alternative was Su-33UB, with 2x 14.5t engines.
All these 18t+(empty) flankers need a 14+ t engine with any load to continue take off in engine out situation (as well as higher AB/max power to not be substantially worse than vanilla in dry performance across the board).
It isn't bad-bad, but when people think about flankers - it's always assumed that all of them are more or less the same floaty hotrods. They are not, in fact, the majority of them aren't.
Wait, what is cope?
The idea that the PLAN is conservative wrt their power plant choice is pretty much established consensus.
The fact that J-35 is using WS-21s while J-35A is using WS-19s, for example, reflects a desire to accept less powerful but more established powerplants for a period until such time that they judge WS-19 to be ready. The same approach applies for Al-31s and WS-10s for J-15 variants.
Indeed, I think it's absolutely same case with WS-21. Things just aren't stable enough for carrier use yet.
People present this as a funny laughing matter, oh, these old people being too conservative~
This isn't conservative; no one wants to get a TF30, send several pilots under down carrier keel, and promptly cripple the morale of a young force. People who say that PLAN is too conservative don't hold any responsibility on subject matter - i.e., it's a matter of prestige.
Al-31FN is not a dream naval engine, quite the opposite in fact. It may hurt feelings, but if WS-10 is not used to date, it just means that for naval applications, it is still substantially worse.
No one is presenting it as a funny laughing matter -- it's just a baseline understanding that the PLAN is conservative wrt fielding powerplants on its naval aircraft.
No one is saying that a mature Al-31 is better than a mature WS-10, or that a mature WS-21 is better than a mature WS-19.
I have a feeling that you have entirely misunderstood the overall discourse and are responding to an argument/position that no one is making.
If they really need more thrust it’s not like the PLA isn’t able to uprate the thrust on their Al-31s. This is a well known practice over the last decade at this point. Really not sure where you’re getting the notion that the engines are underpowered from.
There's no more powerful naval AL-31 available.
I.e. it probably can be done without much problem, but China would be billing the development fee; the choice was made in favour of WS-10H, but it takes time.
There is a difference between "underpowered" versus "more thrust would be better".
In the case of Su-33/J-15, comparing their use of Al-31/WS-10 respectively with F-14A and TF30 is a bit of an odd proposition.