WS10 is derived from AL31/31-F1.No, confirmed this was surely never (Oh well I already speak like Yoda) but it was even more refuted that the WS-10 may be based on the AL-31!
I think no-one denies that there was some sort of technology "transfer" from the AL-31 into the WS-10, especially later variants - but that it was based on it was also never confirmed and in fact even more vehemently denied.
So the TOT bit cannot be totally wrong thenNo, confirmed this was surely never (Oh well I already speak like Yoda
I think no-one denies that there was some sort of technology "transfer" from the AL-31 into the WS-10, especially later variants - but that it was based on it was also never confirmed and in fact even more vehemently denied.
As things stand right now, China itself has been providing rare earths to American defense industry; LM included. While American companies continue to fund research within Chinese universities. All of this still goes on and hasn’t been entirely pulled a plug on.
I am not knowledgeable enough to say for certain, or even make a guess.
No, you are simply wrong on this. The timeline does not work at all. It's core was designed based on the core of CFM56. All Chinese sources have said this. Keep in mind, the same sources have also said WS-13 was copied from RD-93. There is no reason for them to admit to one and not the other. More importantly, WS-10's recent variants are more advanced than the most recent variants of AL-31. There is no reason for China to copy off Russians.
With that sort of logic, you must refer to chocolates as Cocoa, right ??
But it's also about quality control...
and now you are continuing your offence here?!! Get mature man, go out and search for a hobby, a meaning in life since you seem so much frustrated that your rants against me or another member, who has an independent and critical thinking is almost only pitiful and lamentable. I feel sorry for anyone with so much hate and anger and so much lack of understanding since you actually did not even listen to what my point of concern was and therefore this question.
- to try to explain, and that's for what forums are!
Sir your concerns are rightOh well! Minor correction to your comment at first: it is not correct that "she had to explain---like a university professor explaining it to school children", in fact she posted very short one-liner sentences that left more questions than gave answers. As such like a student at the university or a kid at school, those who listen carefully, think on their own and add questions in case they still have concerns are the true good pupils, not those who accept all the get and forget or ignore to think!
Anyway, you know pretty well, why your "right to post has been taken away" from the Block 3 thread
In fact I strongly disagree and contradict what @messiach said and regardless our different opinions, I have all the deepest respect for her since she took her valuable time - as it seems my call on her was unjustified in the form I noted her since as it seems, she simply has not much time to lurk around in forums, sorry for that!
@tphuang @siegecrossbow @Beast @lcloo and @IblinI may better explain to you why I disagree in case you don't even want to think about my concerns since I'm a "Kraut", but maybe you listen to them.
Bet an d take care ... life is too short and too beautiful to constantly be desperate and angry.
Sorry to contradict ... but that for what forums are, to ask in case of disagreement for an explanation!
You are consistently rude, patronising, and ungracious. I hate when people's expression is censored by authority. In your case, however, I wish the moderators would ban you temporarily.
