4 ms·

Actually, the Chinese have had a serious problem designing and building quality jet engines for fighter aircraft. The two prototype "stealth" aircraft they've d

Actually, the Chinese have had a serious problem designing and building quality jet engines for fighter aircraft. The two prototype "stealth" aircraft they've demonstrated (J-31 and J-20) use Russian AL-31 engines pulled from Su-27s, because the native WS-10 engines fail to pass muster consistently. Indeed, the same is true of the J-15 (an Su-33 clone), which is currently the only carrier-capable aircraft they've flown. Fewer than 16 of these aircraft have been built. Its use of the AL-31F makes the J-15 hard to produce, but also severely limits its payload/range. For reference, over 500 of the mainstay F/A-18E/F Super Hornets have been built, and ~1500 of the previous models (A-D) were produced. The Russians are none too pleased about Chinese repurposing and reverse engineering of their aircraft (particularly for engines), and have stopped selling Su-27s and many aircraft parts to the Chinese over IP disputes. The lack of Chinese airpower and carrier operations isn't a product of posturing or strategic differences. They've invested a huge amount of money retrofitting the Admiral Kuznetsov (now Liaoning), are building a second one, and are training pilots for carrier ops with foreign trainers. The Chinese air capabilities are instead hampered primarily by a lack of engine technology and production capability. Never mind the lift-fans.

jasonwatkinspdx 13y ago
That's an interesting point. I didn't know the domestic Chinese turbine industry was so limited. Do you know why? Chinese industry certainly is capable of high tolerance machining, and they're literally the best at the world in complex assembly, so I'd have to guess they're behind on the design or materials side. The Liaoning is a bit of a weird duck. It provides air cover and anti-submarine capabilities to naval formations, but it's not capable of projecting power into a region via strike missions the way US carrier groups do. It fits within the posture I described. But also it seems like it may just be a boondogle to satisfy some admirals that want to be one of the nations that has a "carrier".
- spartango 13y ago
  The public claim is that the quality control and reliability on the WS-10 production lines is poor, but there's evidence that there's more to it than just that. The WS-10 is produced mostly natively, but its design is largely reverse engineered from the AL-31F. In fact, its turbine blades are imported from Russia. This corroborates reports that the Chinese lack the design expertise at present to design a fighter engine from scratch. Also, keep in mind that the WS-10A is derived from the AL-31F, which was first flown on the Su-27, but has since been replaced in Russia by modernized AL-31FM1 and 2 or the new 117 family engines. The FM and 117 series engines have generally better performance than the older F/FN parts, and likely are more efficient. Thus, we can see that the Chinese are working off an old design.
  - yajoe 13y ago
    I feel upvoting this and your other comments is insufficient for saying thank you to adding to the discussion. I know little about military tech, but you've hit the very few bits that I do know (grandfather was a career B-52 pilot) and I appreciate learning more from someone who seems like a reliable source (unusual on the internet, right?). Thank you!
phaus 13y ago
Glad you mentioned the F/A-18. One thing the author fails to understand, is that the term "Joint Strike Fighter" is given to planes with a very specific purpose. The F-35 is supposed to be a replacement for the F/A-18, which is a plane designed to be good at fighting in air-to-air combat and amazing at striking targets on the ground. The F-35 has a similar mission, and as a result, it isn't meant to be the ultimate air-to-air weapon. All else being equal, a specialized product should be better at it's given task than a hybrid, and the F-35 is a hybrid. That being said, there are still some significant problems with the F-35.

jasonwatkinspdx 13y ago

That's an interesting point. I didn't know the domestic Chinese turbine industry was so limited. Do you know why? Chinese industry certainly is capable of high tolerance machining, and they're literally the best at the world in complex assembly, so I'd have to guess they're behind on the design or materials side. The Liaoning is a bit of a weird duck. It provides air cover and anti-submarine capabilities to naval formations, but it's not capable of projecting power into a region via strike missions the way US carrier groups do. It fits within the posture I described. But also it seems like it may just be a boondogle to satisfy some admirals that want to be one of the nations that has a "carrier".

spartango 13y ago
The public claim is that the quality control and reliability on the WS-10 production lines is poor, but there's evidence that there's more to it than just that. The WS-10 is produced mostly natively, but its design is largely reverse engineered from the AL-31F. In fact, its turbine blades are imported from Russia. This corroborates reports that the Chinese lack the design expertise at present to design a fighter engine from scratch. Also, keep in mind that the WS-10A is derived from the AL-31F, which was first flown on the Su-27, but has since been replaced in Russia by modernized AL-31FM1 and 2 or the new 117 family engines. The FM and 117 series engines have generally better performance than the older F/FN parts, and likely are more efficient. Thus, we can see that the Chinese are working off an old design.
- yajoe 13y ago
  I feel upvoting this and your other comments is insufficient for saying thank you to adding to the discussion. I know little about military tech, but you've hit the very few bits that I do know (grandfather was a career B-52 pilot) and I appreciate learning more from someone who seems like a reliable source (unusual on the internet, right?). Thank you!

phaus 13y ago

Glad you mentioned the F/A-18. One thing the author fails to understand, is that the term "Joint Strike Fighter" is given to planes with a very specific purpose. The F-35 is supposed to be a replacement for the F/A-18, which is a plane designed to be good at fighting in air-to-air combat and amazing at striking targets on the ground. The F-35 has a similar mission, and as a result, it isn't meant to be the ultimate air-to-air weapon. All else being equal, a specialized product should be better at it's given task than a hybrid, and the F-35 is a hybrid. That being said, there are still some significant problems with the F-35.