What's new

"Jahesh-700", Iran's first turbofan engine

TheImmortal

SENIOR MEMBER
Mar 11, 2017
5,842
-12
9,899
Country
United States
Location
United States
Well support, adequate training and well funded army are the key factors and not stupid war experience irrelevant for conventional warfare.

As proven by Russian struggling war against Ukraine.

Asymmetric warfare is actually very helpful for conventional warfare in certain areas. And there is no better training then live training. And no better way to understand logistic and supply support than having to defend your supply from asymmetric attacks on supply lines.

It took SAA 5+ years and 100K+ dead to learn urban warfare. Russians are poor at it because in Syria they weren’t on the ground really (mostly air support) and in Chechenya they leveled Grozny before they moved in. ATGMs and drones were not widespread during Chechens wars either.

This urban warfare is tame compared to Syria where terrorists would leave 1000+ IEDS and booby traps when they retreated and the heavy use of IRAMs and Toshkas. Indeed a Russian commander stepped on one accidentally in Syria when touring a captured area and died.

Neither side seems to do that in this European conflict especially Ukraine side.

russia is unprepared for Ukraine, i agree. but funny enough as a counterpoint to you, russia has similar experience to the US but on a smaller scale. They fought lesser opponents in syria against similar type of arab opponents that the us fought, they had mercenaries in many middle east conflicts including american fought ones, they fought Georgia, they fought the chechens...twice. and as you clearly agree, all that experience did not translate into quick victory over Ukraine(though they are winning still).

chinese war doctrine was never the same as the soviets/russians. the original PRC doctrine was Mao's "people's war" which is still studied around the world especially by partisans and guerillas, it emphasized local support and maneuver and infiltration warfare by relatively lightly armed units on foot and composed of small groups that could organically reform/merge as need if casualties are taken. China never had the extent of heavy top down approach that the soviets deployed. plus china could not follow soviet doctrine even if they wanted because china did not have the military industry that the soviets had. this people's war doctrine was roughly followed until the mid-70s, when china began to be able to add a notable airforce and mechanized components to its armies and started looking at more than just defence and at smaller objectives than total war. the real change came in 1991 with the gulf war. which really began the chinese move to true combined arms combat and a emphasis on upgrading technology instead of just quantity, this meant improved communications, sensors and a leaner but meaner military. Modern chinese doctrine under Hu then really picking up pace under Xi, places very heavy emphasis on mobility and information warfare in domains such as the cyber and space in addition to range advantage whether that is seeing or shooting, a lot of it is based on what they saw america do, with their own added flavors of course.

china-taiwan conflict is possible, but i don't see american boot on the ground or any active american participation at all, we're seeing this now in Ukraine, and saw this when russia annexed crimea and when it fought georgia. there is no defense treaty with taiwan and being an island, they can't be supplied like the Ukrainians are, or how the mujahideen was. additionally, Taiwan is way smaller than Ukraine, if we take russia as a yardstick in the amount of land they took in the first week. if the PLA lands on taiwan, and performed as bad as russia, china would still take the entire country in like 3 days minus a few major cities which would all be surrounded. furthermore a taiwan scenario in which the US does intervene would almost entirely be a naval and air war, if you take naval and air supremacy and land on the island, its game over for the defenders.

I agree on most of your points. The points we disagree are few and not far apart.

What are your thoughts on Xi and how he is responding to this Ukraine event? Biden and US deep state is saying Xi is better of with relations with the West, but this is the same trick they used on Putin from 2000-2014.

They made his country dependent on trade relations with the West and certain technology transfer from the West for various industries. So that if he ever tried to stop their designs his country would be thoroughly punished economically, socially, and politically.

China is much more economically independent thAn Russia and can tap into its 1B population for GDP growth, but it still has heavy links with US and Europe.

US/Europe has shown they are willing to sacrifice their own people’s economic well being to make sure their designs work out. US is no friend to China we all know that especially with the so called “Asia Pivot” being openly talked about as if it’s a completely natural and legal thing to do.

Would appreciate your take on China’s combating US designs. For years I thought Putin was too accommodating with the West. Him and his Oligarchs a little too naive they would be eventually be accepted as equals by the West. Never happened. All designs to weaken Russia when the time comes as Putin (hopefully) clearly sees now.

I mean widespread seizures of oligarchs assets around the world as if this is legal and natural to do? People breaking into their properties and vandalizing it. Barbaric savages is what the West is
 
Last edited:

Beast

ELITE MEMBER
Feb 5, 2011
30,242
-51
66,883
Country
China
Location
China
Asymmetric warfare is actually very helpful for conventional warfare in certain areas. And there is no better training then live training. And no better way to understand logistic and supply support than having to defend your supply from asymmetric attacks on supply lines.

It took SAA 5+ years and 100K+ dead to learn urban warfare. Russians are poor at it because in Syria they weren’t on the ground really (mostly air support) and in Chechenya they leveled Grozny before they moved in. ATGMs and drones were not widespread during Chechens wars either.

This urban warfare is tame compared to Syria where terrorists would leave 1000+ IEDS and booby traps when they retreated and the heavy use of IRAMs and Toshkas. Indeed a Russian commander stepped on one accidentally in Syria when touring a captured area and died.

Neither side seems to do that in this European conflict especially Ukraine side.
Asymmetric urban warfare is only a small part of the modern conventional warfare which involved large scale maneuver, sophisticated electronic warfare, TRI service coordination.

For a modern countries or places like Taiwan or major cities. All you need is to knock out their power station and turn the cities back to stone age and highly urbannist dweller will loses the will to fight as proven in Serbia Kosovo war in 1999.

All the while Russia and USA are drain of resources needed to better train their conventional forces to fight a large scale conventional war against foes like China.

The talking of experience is just a talk down about superiority of the foe to make their weakness feel better.

I can say PLA is the most well funded armed forces in the world. Our equipment and manpower are not exorbitant prices as western forces. State control ensure private sector will not put the government at mercy of private enterprise greedy appetite.

Every year, PLA conduct large scale TRI service full scale exercise to brush up combat readiness. It's much better than fighting useless insurgent warfare which do little to help in modern conventional warfare.
 

tonyget

FULL MEMBER
Jun 5, 2008
500
1
410
Country
China
Location
New Zealand
Chinese engines still lack the TBO and lifespans of leading Western engines as well as Russian engines.

You know,I don't like to use any propaganda or informations spreaded by fanboys to debate these kind of topic. I like to use what has been observed to infer the status of the engine development.

So what have we seen so far?China is not buying Russian engines to power new fighters, rather the latest J-20/J-16/J-10 are equipped with domestic engines. Now, if China can not get Russian engines anymore, you could argue that China is doing this because they have no choice. But it is clearly not the case,China has no problem of procuring engines from Russia. So why is it that China is not buying Russian engine anymore if they are better than domestic ones?

I think the answer is pretty clear now,action speaks louder than words.
 

TheImmortal

SENIOR MEMBER
Mar 11, 2017
5,842
-12
9,899
Country
United States
Location
United States
You know,I don't like to use any propaganda or informations spreaded by fanboys to debate these kind of topic. I like to use what has been observed to infer the status of the engine development.

So what have we seen so far?China is not buying Russian engines to power new fighters, rather the latest J-20/J-16/J-10 are equipped with domestic engines. Now, if China can not get Russian engines anymore, you could argue that China is doing this because they have no choice. But it is clearly not the case,China has no problem of procuring engines from Russia. So why is it that China is not buying Russian engine anymore if they are better than domestic ones?

I think the answer is pretty clear now,action speaks louder than words.

Iran uses imported Rotax engine in its drones when it could easily make it. Why? Using your method someone would say because Iran cannot make it. Which is nonsense when it makes its own CM engines. Sometimes there are various reasons for the side of the story.

If China can make a 75% capable engine with 70% of life of a Russian engine but at 30-40% less cost...is it worth it? China would say of course. Because in time you will learn to make 100% capable at 110% life than a Russian with newer engines or newer generation Derivatives of same engine.

So you cannot make a conclusion that because China could buy Russian engines, but it doesn’t then MUST means its engines are just as good as Russians if not better. In the beginning I used your same logic regarding Iran example but in the opposite way.

You claim you didn’t want to use propaganda of fanboys, but literally just did a more nuanced fanboy bias. Chinese claims have been unproven this is not good or bad it’s just fact. It’s not malicious or anything. At one point Iranian missile claims were unproven and everyone doubted our accuracy claims even “friendly” countries....until we rained missiles down on a US shared Iraqi airbase.

So let’s wait and see.
 

tonyget

FULL MEMBER
Jun 5, 2008
500
1
410
Country
China
Location
New Zealand
If China can make a 75% capable engine with 70% of life of a Russian engine but at 30-40% less cost...is it worth it? China would say of course. Because in time you will learn to make 100% capable at 110% life than a Russian with newer engines or newer generation Derivatives of same engine.

I knew you are going to say that,Chinese Airforce will just accept sub-standard engines as long as it's domestically produced right?So far there is no evidence to backup that claim. Just because Chinese companies made some military hardwares doesn't mean Chinese military have to accept it,in fact Chinese military industrial-complex made tons of failed products which are rejected by the military in the past.

The WS-10 engine isn't new,China started to produce it back in 2006, So why they just start to mass equipt it in recent years?They could have done it decades ago if they were to accept engines that are not on par with AL-31F.

If this is a brand new engine and people claim that it is already better than the proven AL-31F,sure it sounds suspicious. But that is not the case,It took China 16 years to improve the engine to finally get there, it didn't happen over night .

Your “75% capable” don't make any sense either. Engine is the heart of the plane,a plane is designed based on dedicated engine. The performance of the engine affects the total performance of the plane greatly. A 25% difference in engine performance would require a total re-design of the entire aircraft. The performance payload range maneuverability etc would shrink significantly. Again,there is no evidence that the new batchs of Chinese planes equipt with domestic engines are worse than the old ones,the idea that China are willing to sacrifice airforce capability when they don't have to is absurd.
 
Last edited:

TheImmortal

SENIOR MEMBER
Mar 11, 2017
5,842
-12
9,899
Country
United States
Location
United States
I knew you are going to say that,Chinese Airforce will just accept sub-standard engines as long as it's domestically produced right?So far there is no evidence to backup that claim. Just because Chinese companies made some military hardwares doesn't mean Chinese military have to accept it,in fact Chinese military industrial-complex made tons of failed products which are rejected by the military in the past.

And there is zero evidence to back your claim either. No non-biased (non Chinese) source would say that Chinese engines are on par with Russian engines.

The WS-10 engine isn't new,China started to produce it back in 2006, So why they just start to mass equipt it in recent years?They could have done it decades ago if they were to accept engines that are not on par with AL-31F.

You just answered your own question below:

would require a total re-design of the entire aircraft. The performance payload range maneuverability etc would shrink significantly.


Conclusion: China had no need to rush it’s own engine development but we see once the valid reasons for such appeared (exporting aircraft to Pakistan and developing its own 5th Gen fighters) Chinese engines took a greater role at that point.
 

tonyget

FULL MEMBER
Jun 5, 2008
500
1
410
Country
China
Location
New Zealand
And there is zero evidence to back your claim either. No non-biased (non Chinese) source would say that Chinese engines are on par with Russian engines.

The West have access to Russian engine via Eastern European airforces,Russian airplane and engines have been tested throughly by the west,so Non-Russian can make unbiassed claims regarding Russian engines.

Let me ask you,which "source" outside of China have access to Chinese engines in order to evaluate it's performance?All "non Chinese sources" regarding Chinese engines will eventually trace back to Chinese sources, no one knows anything about Chinese engines other than China. How can you make an “non-biased” product review when you didn't even tried that product?

You just answered your own question below:

Conclusion: China had no need to rush it’s own engine development but we see once the valid reasons for such appeared (exporting aircraft to Pakistan and developing its own 5th Gen fighters) Chinese engines took a greater role at that point.

You didn't answer my question. I'm asking you:do you have any evidence to prove,that the current Chinese airforce is degenerating rather than improving because of the adoption of domestic engines?
 

drmeson

FULL MEMBER
Sep 2, 2016
1,745
0
3,455
Country
Iran, Islamic Republic Of
Location
Russian Federation
1664222159002.png



Patarames holds the view that some version of Shahed 171 is powered by Jahesh-700 Turbofan.
 

Hack-Hook

ELITE MEMBER
Jan 11, 2012
17,085
3
15,737
Country
Iran, Islamic Republic Of
Location
Iran, Islamic Republic Of
yes, Can become a proper stealth intruder and attacker.

2 x Jahesh-700 will mean the aircraft can now deploy heavier PGMs, may fly supersonic too.
not enough power to make it go supersonic considering it already use Tolue-14 and if you want to use two engine it must be bigger and well as now it can carry more ammunition it will be heavier

yes, Can become a proper stealth intruder and attacker.

2 x Jahesh-700 will mean the aircraft can now deploy heavier PGMs, may fly supersonic too.
not enough power to make it go supersonic considering it already use Tolue-14 and if you want to use two engine it must be bigger and well as now it can carry more ammunition it will be heavier

yes, Can become a proper stealth intruder and attacker.

2 x Jahesh-700 will mean the aircraft can now deploy heavier PGMs, may fly supersonic too.
not enough power to make it go supersonic considering it already use Tolue-14 and if you want to use two engine it must be bigger and well as now it can carry more ammunition it will be heavier
 

drmeson

FULL MEMBER
Sep 2, 2016
1,745
0
3,455
Country
Iran, Islamic Republic Of
Location
Russian Federation
not enough power to make it go supersonic considering it already use Tolue-14 and if you want to use two engine it must be bigger and well as now it can carry more ammunition it will be heavier


not enough power to make it go supersonic considering it already use Tolue-14 and if you want to use two engine it must be bigger and well as now it can carry more ammunition it will be heavier


not enough power to make it go supersonic considering it already use Tolue-14 and if you want to use two engine it must be bigger and well as now it can carry more ammunition it will be heavier

What is the thrust of Toloue-14?

And yes if the intention is to turn Stealth Shahed-171 into an attack UCAV then two engines should be put on it to give it enough non-afterburning push for high-speed evasions. Enlargement is a bonus for such a design that should not be a challenge at all because apparently they have mastered Shaheds size variations.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 1, Members: 0, Guests: 1)


Top Bottom