Shenyang J-15 aircraft carrier-based aircraft

[UKBengali]

Martian,

J-10B 1035 is indeed equipped with WS-10A, and we have seen it flying since 2011 as I recall.

In two year, assuming it test flies 5 hours per week, it would have only accumulated 540 hours on J-10B 1035.

I honestly would prefer 1000 hrs of flying record at least before mass deploying WS-10A on J-10Bs since the aircraft sports just one engine, and reliability is crucial. I believe that the engine is maturing, but it would be more prudent to delay the deployment on J-10B for a couple more years unless we are facing immediate war scenario. I am sure CAC is thinking similarly.

Why restrict WS-10A testing to just a single J-10B?

 

[jhungary]

Review all the posters here. All have been carrying on in very nice discussions until that China hater @jhungary came in, and some indians here made some frivolous remarks and then it is you who generalize us with your garbage!

Classic Chinese Diversion tactics again.

My first ever post is this

I think they can expect the sales of J-15 overseas when Chinese think they master the skill of Stealth.

However, I don't think J-15 would have a good international market tho, with no/low combat data. Many people would just go back to Su-27 or Mig-29 for their rep. Plus I don't think Chinese will make a lot of them for themselves as they see it as a stop gap fighter.


It will be interesting to see how China try to sell their fighter, compare to the big dog.

Source: http://www.defence.pk/forums/chines...ers-mass-production-navy-2.html#ixzz2TDwXQbXV

I post it because some Member in BD and Pakistan asking if J-15 will be available to them.

And I answer, J-15 is hard for China to sell and country like BD and Pakistan would probably better off buying Su-27 or Mig-29 which have a better combat record and cheaper airframe and cheaper parts. And China themselves would not be interested on selling them on the account they are also using them as a Stop Gap fighter

Then some Over-zealous Chinese member here then attack my post and say am I high on drug that I claim China are selling those J-15. Which is totally not my point. And as far as I concern, that post is the one that gone off topic.

LOL @shuttler Did you ran out of thing to say??

If you accuse me of off topic, please go head and report my post, but not trying to point the finger on someone else when you have nothing better to say.

 

[ptldM3]

Review all the posters here. All have been carrying on in very nice discussions until that China hater @jhungary came in, and some indians here made some frivolous remarks and then it is you who generalize us with your garbage!

Check post #52, It was a chinese member that started making wild claims. I challenged him on those claims by simply stating the fact that he has no information on Russian engines or even Chinese engines to make that kind of claim.

From there another Chinese member started making unworented and immature attacks only to be thanked by his fellow Chinese. Those posts were deleted. So how am I the bad guy again, and what did I do?

 

[Martian2]

Why restrict WS-10A testing to just a single J-10B?

A single prototype J-10B with WS-10A engine is manageable. A fleet is not.

The single J-10B with WS-10A engine is a prototype. You need to run the tests to discover if there are problems with the mating of the WS-10A engine to the J-10B gearbox and other interfaces (e.g. software control systems and other hardware control systems). You also need to test the J-10B prototype to discover the engine performance of a single WS-10A and the aircraft performance of the J-10B (such as forward and lateral g-acceleration).

There is a mountain of technical data and reliability information that can be gathered by testing a J-10B with a WS-10A engine.

You do not want to test a large number of J-10Bs with WS-10A engines, because the long-term reliability of WS-10A engines under real-world conditions is currently unknown. Furthermore, it is easy to maintain a single WS-10A engine on a J-10B prototype.

It is not realistic to check, maintain, and repair a large fleet of J-10Bs with WS-10A engines. The manpower/technicians, time, and cost are too burdensome to justify a fleet of prototype J-10Bs with a new WS-10A engine.

It makes sense to fly a single prototype J-10B with a WS-10A engine, but it doesn't make sense to fly a fleet of experimental J-10Bs with WS-10A engines.

For an analogy, look to the American F-35 fleet. Every time that a problem (such as a crack in the turbofan blade) is discovered, the entire fleet of 30 F-35s are grounded and repaired. It is very expensive and time-consuming. Not the smartest way to test a new aircraft or engine.

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

Why restrict WS-10A testing to just a single J-10B?

There could have many J-10B '1035' prototypes, since China has the habit to fool its opponent.

 

[UKBengali]

@Martian2 - You have some good points but I think it would be wise to maybe test on several aircraft at once to gather the most amount of data in the shortest point in time.

 

[gambit]

A single prototype J-10B with WS-10A engine is manageable. A fleet is not.

The single J-10B with WS-10A engine is a prototype. You need to run the tests to discover if there are problems with the mating of the WS-10A engine to the J-10B gearbox and other interfaces (e.g. software control systems and other hardware control systems). You also need to test the J-10B prototype to discover the engine performance of a single WS-10A and the aircraft performance of the J-10B (such as forward and lateral g-acceleration).

There is a mountain of technical data and reliability information that can be gathered by testing a J-10B with a WS-10A engine.

You do not want to test a large number of J-10Bs with WS-10A engines, because the long-term reliability of WS-10A engines under real-world conditions is currently unknown. Furthermore, it is easy to maintain a single WS-10A engine on a J-10B prototype.

It is not realistic to check, maintain, and repair a large fleet of J-10Bs with WS-10A engines. The manpower/technicians, time, and cost are too burdensome to justify a fleet of prototype J-10Bs with a new WS-10A engine.

It makes sense to fly a single prototype J-10B with a WS-10A engine, but it doesn't make sense to fly a fleet of experimental J-10Bs with WS-10A engines.

For an analogy, look to the American F-35 fleet. Every time that a problem (such as a crack in the turbofan blade) is discovered, the entire fleet of 30 F-35s are grounded and repaired. It is very expensive and time-consuming. Not the smartest way to test a new aircraft or engine.

All the more reasons why you should conduct testing and development under 'parallelism'. Real world data cannot be gathered when you have only one unit with common experience in relatively uniform environment working on the new component. And the F-35 is an inappropriate analogy because the F-35 is a brand new aircraft, not a derivative or evolution like the J-10B, and the -35's manufacturing and development is under 'concurrency', not 'parallelism'. Look up both terms.

 

[Audio]

Off topic, but this camo scheme is kick ass. Easily the best looking Flanker anywhere. imho

 

[S10]

It was a glitch in the software, that was quickly corrected. In early stages of development faults happen. You have to be naive to think that the J-20 has not encountered problems.

Either way I would take a flameout instead of a WS-10 disintegrating. And yes, currently Russian engines are much better then Chinese ones, better in service life, TBO, thrust, thrust-to-weight, ect.


And one question to all the Chinese here, why are you always picking fights, acting ignorant, and plainly acting like A-holes? While always playing the victims?

Aside from pilot error, the single most important reason for crashes in PLAAF is Russian engines. AL-31F and FN caused far more losses than WS-10A could ever hope for. Before you go around talking trash about WS-10, look in the mirror.

 

[ptldM3]

Aside from pilot error, the single most important reason for crashes in PLAAF is Russian engines. AL-31F and FN caused far more losses than WS-10A could ever hope for. Before you go around talking trash about WS-10, look in the mirror.

That is funny considering there are thousands of Al-31s in service all around the world and very few incidents have been reported in 30+ years, and yes twin engine aircraft do crash if one engine flames out depending on altitude, airspeed, and pilot skills.

But, the Chinese need a scapegoat, after all the glorious People's Republic of China can do no wrong. I'm sure if the JH-7 would be equipped with Russian engines those crashes would be blamed on Russian engines too. Might as well blame us for Chinese ejection seats not working too.

 

[Genesis]

That is funny considering there are thousands of Al-31s in service all around the world and very few incidents have been reported in 30+ years, and yes twin engine aircraft do crash if one engine flames out depending on altitude, airspeed, and pilot skills.

But, the Chinese need a scapegoat, after all the glorious People's Republic of China can do no wrong. I'm sure if the JH-7 would be equipped with Russian engines those crashes would be blamed on Russian engines too. Might as well blame us for Chinese ejection seats not working too.

We are your biggest customer, so of course our crash rate will be higher due to longer flying hours. Some small country may not fly them much at all so as to reduce the possiblity and it's probably ordered in small number.

This isn't Russian fault or anyone's fault, there's danger in flying jets true everywhere.

However, you seem to think Russian cannot be surpassed, America has. China will.

Why do I say this? Russians for a very long time were not technologically superior to rest of the world until pretty much the last 80 years or so, if that.

So we can say, any people can surpass anybody.

Russia under Communist can use mass amounts of money on weapons even with a weak economy, not so anymore.

China is a economic superpower increasing budget and GDP by the year, so it is logical China will surpass Russia eventually.

The only way for Russia to change this is through economic reform or increase budget to match or surpass China to make sure China doesn't surpass Russia.

 

[ptldM3]

We are your biggest customer, so of course our crash rate will be higher due to longer flying hours. Some small country may not fly them much at all so as to reduce the possiblity and it's probably ordered in small number.

This isn't Russian fault or anyone's fault, there's danger in flying jets true everywhere.

However, you seem to think Russian cannot be surpassed, America has. China will.

Why do I say this? Russians for a very long time were not technologically superior to rest of the world until pretty much the last 80 years or so, if that.

So we can say, any people can surpass anybody.

Russia under Communist can use mass amounts of money on weapons even with a weak economy, not so anymore.

China is a economic superpower increasing budget and GDP by the year, so it is logical China will surpass Russia eventually.

The only way for Russia to change this is through economic reform or increase budget to match or surpass China to make sure China doesn't surpass Russia.

Russia is spending 600 billion on modernizing it's military, they have no shortage of money. And money can only get you so far.

No one including myself is claiming China has not made some impressive advancements overall; they have, but it's silly how many Chinese on this forum make statement such as we will surpass or we have surpassed Russia. If Russia simply and abruptly stoped development of their military programs then that would be a valid argument.

 

[Genesis]

Russia is spending 600 billion on modernizing it's military, they have no shortage of money. And money can only get you so far.

No one including myself is claiming China has not made some impressive advancements overall; they have, but it's silly how many Chinese on this forum make statement such as we will surpass or we have surpassed Russia. If Russia simply and abruptly stoped development of their military programs then that would be a valid argument.

Russia to modernize army for $600 billion till 2020 ? RT News

russia 600 billion military in 10 years is impressive for any other country. China is spending 120+ billion a year with 210+ billion by 2020 spending a year officially.

While America spends that a year and more.

So if we were to look at it from this angle, China will match Russia at the latest at about 2025, if not a little sooner.

The fact of the matter is Russia cannot like the US support too many programs at once while it's GDP is still below 3 trillion.

By the end of the decade, even conservative increases would put China at 11 trillion GDP.

This would mean, better education, living environment to attract people, better infrastructure, more room for innovation.

Economy and military are tied hand in hand, not just in money. American military invented internet, but it was not there that the internet developed into today's internet to give America the edge in info tech warfare it has today. A large economy is needed to advance technology.

 

[ptldM3]

Russia to modernize army for $600 billion till 2020 ? RT News

russia 600 billion military in 10 years is impressive for any other country. China is spending 120+ billion a year with 210+ billion by 2020 spending a year officially.


While America spends that a year and more.

So if we were to look at it from this angle, China will match Russia at the latest at about 2025, if not a little sooner.

The fact of the matter is Russia cannot like the US support too many programs at once while it's GDP is still below 3 trillion.

By the end of the decade, even conservative increases would put China at 11 trillion GDP.

This would mean, better education, living environment to attract people, better infrastructure, more room for innovation.

Economy and military are tied hand in hand, not just in money. American military invented internet, but it was not there that the internet developed into today's internet to give America the edge in info tech warfare it has today. A large economy is needed to advance technology.

That is only for modernization/upgrades this does not include annual military spending which includes feeding, training, housing, transporting, and paying soldiers. It doesn't include fuel, storage, program funding, ect.

The only thing it includes is new equipment. Personnel and fighting wars will cause annual military spending to go sky high.

 

[applesauce]

That is only for modernization/upgrades this does not include annual military spending which includes feeding, training, housing, transporting, and paying soldiers. It doesn't include fuel, storage, program funding, ect.

The only thing it includes is new equipment. Personnel and fighting wars will cause annual military spending to go sky high.

anyway you put it, the chinese economy is already FAR larger than the Russian one and the gap is only getting larger, russia can dump 600 billion over 10 years? china can easily manage that in half the time, heck if its spending was like america, it would be spending over 300 billion this year alone. even at its current spending of ~1.5% to 2%, over time, assuming no major unforeseeable problems,there is nothing wrong with thinking that china will surpass russia, and it already has in certain areas, for instance, ship building. That said, there are many areas where china is still behind, most noticeably in the engines department. but the chinese engines are NOT worst than comparable russian engines, for instance ws-10 vs AF-31, the ws-10 suffered initial problems, including slower spool up time, and less reliability and mass production problems. However those problems has since been fixed and the ws-10 is now in mass productions with all the new j-11b using it, and new j-15/16 using it, and its highly probably the j-10b will use it as well.