sancho
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2009
- Messages
- 13,011
- Reaction score
- 27
- Country
- Location
But it doesn't prevent them to make WS-10A called successful even it required hauling after 30 hrs against western standard of 300 hrs. ? so chinese called in successful and now will you call WS-10A a complete failure?
I wouldn't call it a success yet, but it's far away from beeing a failure like Kaveri engine, because their engines were developed and integrated into the fighters they were aimed at, which is a crucial difference!
WS 13 engine for example was integrated into JF 17 and is officially given with 86.37kN which is just slightly better than the RD93, although not at the aimed level so far. However, it could be used for the fighter if required and the further developments and upgrades can bring it to development goals.
Compare that to Kaveri:
- far away from development goals
- is not useful for LCA
- offers no scope to achieve the aimed thrust, which is why even DRDO itself prefers a co-development
But the key difference of their and our engine developments is, that they were smart enough to let none of their fighters beeing dependent of the indigenous engines! They used proven AL 31 and RD 93 engines from the start and that's why J10A, J11A and JF 17 Block 1 are inducted into operational service and why LCA is not!
Again, I am all for indigenous developments, but with some logical sense and not blinded by pride ! ! !