Exciting Times for Chinese Aircraft Engines!

Joined
Sep 5, 2020
Messages
4,132
Likes
17,621
Country flag
It frustrates me to be behind the US, but maybe that's what motivates Chinese engineers



US Air Force Chief: China Could Field 6th-Gen Fighters Before America
Gen. Mark Kelly’s warning underscores key defense industry trends favoring China in the race for the next technological breakthrough.
By A.B. Abrams
September 30, 2022







US Air Force Chief: China Could Field 6th-Gen Fighters Before America

An artist’s rendering of Lockheed Martin’s concept for a sixth-generation fighter.

Credit: Lockheed MartinADVERTISEMENT

At the Air and Space Force Association’s recent Air, Space and Cyber conference, U.S. Air Combat Command chief Gen. Mark Kelly gave the latest of several warnings that the Chinese People’s Liberation Army Air Force could become the first service in the world to field sixth-generation fighter aircraft – thereby overtaking the United States.

“I cannot tell you today what’s going on in China except they’re planning for their 20th National Party Congress [in October],” Kelly warned. “But I can tell you what’s not happening. They’re not having a debate over the relevance of six-gen air dominance. And I can also tell you they’re on track.”

The competition between rival sixth-generation programs pursued by the world’s two largest economies and defense spenders was close enough that Kelly set a goal of inducting such fighters into the U.S. Air Force “at least a month prior to our competitors,” a goal that contrasted with the lead of several years that the U.S. had comfortably achieved in previous generations.

Developments in fighter aviation since the beginning of the Cold War can broadly be divided into six generations, with most major players having reached the fourth by the 1980s while the U.S. Air Force introduced the world’s first fifth-generation fighter into service in December 2005. Each generation has provided very significant advantages to its operators in comparison to fighters from prior generations. The fifth generation introduced such technologies as AESA radars and stealth airframes, while the sixth is expected to enjoy a leap in avionics and greater reliance on unmanned “wingman” drones and directed energy weapons.

DIPLOMAT BRIEF
WEEKLY NEWSLETTER

N
Get briefed on the story of the week, and developing stories to watch across the Asia-Pacific.
GET THE NEWSLETTER
Although the sharp decline in post-Soviet Russia’s economy and high-tech and defense sector from 1992 fueled confidence in the West that U.S. fighters would not have peer rivals for the foreseeable future, the rise of China’s defense and broader tech sectors in the 2010s ended such hopes. China’s armed forces have since 2020 outspent the U.S. military on acquisitions, with R&D in areas with key military applications such as artificial intelligence being pursued on a far larger scale. These emerging disparities are only set to grow. The two powers are effectively in a league of their own in combat aviation as reflected by the lack of serious third party competition in developing sixth-generation fighters, and by the fact that they are the only two to field squadrons of indigenous fifth-generation fighters.

Enjoying this article? Click here to subscribe for full access. Just $5 a month.

Regarding the possibility of China being the first to field a sixth-generation fighter, Kelly previously highlighted in February 2021: “What I don’t know … is if our nation will have the courage and the focus to field this capability before someone like the Chinese fields it and uses it against us.” He warned that despite the Pentagon’s “keen focus” on development, “[W]e just need to make sure we keep our narrative up and articulate the biggest benefit we’ve had as a nation to have leading-edge technology ensuring we have air superiority.”

Although it is far from certain which country will be the first to field sixth-generation fighters and what kind of capability advantages each will enjoy, there are multiple indications that China could have a significant lead. One of several factors pointing to this is how much more quickly and efficiently it has been able to develop new generations of weapons systems, including fighters.

The first technology demonstrator for the United States’ first fifth-generation fighter program flew in September 1990 – over 15 years before the aircraft could join the U.S. Air Force as the F-22 with an initial operating capability. By contrast, the first technology demonstrator for development of its Chinese counterpart, the J-20, flew in January 2011, a mere six years before the fighter entered service in March 2017.

ADVERTISEMENT

The United States’ second fifth-generation fighter, the F-35, also saw a period of 15 years between its first technology demonstrator flight in October 2000 and its entry into service in 2015 due to significant delays to the program. This was despite F-35 development benefiting tremendously from technologies already operationalized on the F-22. Similar trends can be observed across high end weapons systems in the two defense sectors, whether comparing the U.S. Zumwalt and Chinese Type 055 destroyers, or the Littoral Combat Ship and Type 054 frigate.

The United States has struggled with large clean sheet weapons programs since the end of the Cold War, although the contraction of its defense sector and broader industrial base in the 1990s did not appear at the time to pose a major threat largely because the industries of its only peer competitor, Russia, were deteriorating exponentially faster. While the gap between the U.S. and Russian defense sectors is only expected to grow, China’s rise and its emergence as the leader in R&D in many key areas of high tech, as well as in spending on acquisitions, has placed it on track to lead the world in the capabilities of its weapons systems. This supplements the strong lead already demonstrated in how quickly it can bring new systems into service, a growing number of which have no counterparts in foreign arsenals.

The consequences for the balance of power in East Asia and beyond are significant, affecting potential hotspots from the Taiwan Strait and South China Sea to the Korean Peninsula and Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands.

The decision in June to abandon ambitious and unorthodox development plans for the United States’ sixth-generation fighter, which would have seen it follow the precedent set by the Century Series fighters in the 1950s, with airframes being radically redesigned several times each decade, may have been an indicator that close competition was leaving little room for experimentation. This closely coincided with reports that the fighter’s engineering, manufacturing, and development phase had begun, although a more recent statement by Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall confirmed that these were premature.

While the outcome of the race to the sixth generation will not be apparent until close to the end of the decade, the fact that the U.S. lead has diminished to the extent that it could now very realistically fall behind provides one of many indications of the emerging trends in technological competition between the two countries as China takes the lead in a fast-growing number of areas.
China fields a lot of things but many of them do NOT work to specifications. We all know about the Wingloong drones failures. Lol.
 
Joined
Sep 5, 2020
Messages
4,132
Likes
17,621
Country flag
China hadn't had a war in 40 years. Indians love to use the no experience of Chinese armed forces and no actual combat usage of Chinese weapons as a common retort so even you know Chinese people hadn't done much dominatrix stuff. lol

The truth is unless China is satisfied with being poor and behind the West forever, what's happening now would eventually happen sooner or later.

And not just now, China was banned from US satellites, GPS, space stations, super computers, nuclear energy, aero engines, etc. years ago. Today China has done pretty well in each of those sectors. I highly doubt it will be any different with silicon :)
You will be behind the west forever as your industry is not based on solid R&D investments. Now that the west is back to kicking out the CCP from strategic projects, you are struggling to get the technology done and relying on clandestine means to acquire them, just like you did in the past. Countries are vigilant now and it will not work anymore.
 

SexyChineseLady

New Member
Joined
Oct 3, 2016
Messages
5,178
Likes
4,008
R&D is growing very fast. The engine industry is a perfect example of that.

The WS-10 variants (including WS-20) that power all of China's new military aircraft are the products of this advancement.

WS-10 started when China's R&D figures started growing -- about $100B per year.

The newer projects have the support of $500B R&D expenditure a year!

So it is the products coming up -- WS-15, WS-19, CJ1000, CJ2000, etc. -- that'll show the full impact ;)

Percentage of GDP spent on research

According to the World Bank, Chinese investment in Research and Development (R&D) reached 2.4 percent of GDP in 2020 and is currently second behind the US at 3.45 percent of GDP.

While the US still outspends China in absolute terms, the gap is narrowing between the two with China spending around 20 percent less than the US. And if the Chinese and US economies continue to grow at their current rates – 3.2 percent for China and 1.6 percent for the US – then China would end up spending more than the US on its current research base by 2032 without the need to increase the percentage of GDP invested.

F4EED329-A44F-4BD1-BC08-D874DD6CE6D9.jpeg
 

rockdog

New Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2010
Messages
4,249
Likes
3,025
Country flag
R&D is growing very fast. The engine industry is a perfect example of that.

The WS-10 variants (including WS-20) that power all of China's new military aircraft are the products of this advancement.

WS-10 started when China's R&D figures started growing -- about $100B per year.

The newer projects have the support of $500B R&D expenditure a year!

So it is the products coming up -- WS-15, WS-19, CJ1000, CJ2000, etc. -- that'll show the full impact ;)

Percentage of GDP spent on research

According to the World Bank, Chinese investment in Research and Development (R&D) reached 2.4 percent of GDP in 2020 and is currently second behind the US at 3.45 percent of GDP.

While the US still outspends China in absolute terms, the gap is narrowing between the two with China spending around 20 percent less than the US. And if the Chinese and US economies continue to grow at their current rates – 3.2 percent for China and 1.6 percent for the US – then China would end up spending more than the US on its current research base by 2032 without the need to increase the percentage of GDP invested.

View attachment 181947
I checked just Huawei' 2021 R&D investment was 20 billons USD. India was 60 billions... The gap will getting bigger from my pov.

IMG_20221115_122808.jpg


By 2021 the gap was 5.5 times and it's 6 times.
 

Alamarathan

New Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2022
Messages
1,217
Likes
4,751
Country flag
Watch for the 2D vectoring engine (WS-19) for J-35 in coming years :D
Doode,you are getting way too much excited for non trivial things,

Get out your room play and workout,just live your as yourself,be yourself not as a sexylady on a thread name starting with the word "exciting"

Giving me wrong vibes,

About the 2d vectoring,is it like on the f22?
 

SexyChineseLady

New Member
Joined
Oct 3, 2016
Messages
5,178
Likes
4,008
More important question,why not go for an 3d vectoring?
Actually, China is pursuing both kinds of TVCs

These are the two types shown at the Zhuhai Airshow:
3D
47C86BF7-1A62-4DE4-AEAD-5B962678E930.jpeg

47D34417-7390-49AB-9F2E-E6BEB1E43BF8.jpeg


2D
ECED13C4-CD72-4815-95DD-047E11A88B1E.jpeg

BCF18EDF-84A9-4837-8290-145AC9CD8942.jpeg


Now, the reason why you would go with the 2D for a stealth aircraft like the J-35 is because that type allows for better stealth characteristics. But it bleeds energy more quickly than the 3D type.

So it is possible that the 2D would go to J-20 and J-35 and the 3D to J-10 and J-15/J-16.

But there are discussion that J-10 and Flankers are already extremely maneuverable and not worth the energy bleed in a future dominated by BVR anyways. We shall see in coming years!
 

Alamarathan

New Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2022
Messages
1,217
Likes
4,751
Country flag
Actually, China is pursuing both kinds of TVCs

These are the two types shown at the Zhuhai Airshow:
3D
View attachment 182058
View attachment 182059

2D
View attachment 182061
View attachment 182062

Now, the reason why you would go with the 2D for a stealth aircraft like the J-35 is because that type allows for better stealth characteristics. But it bleeds energy more quickly than the 3D type.

So it is possible that the 2D would go to J-20 and J-35 and the 3D to J-10 and J-15/J-16.

But there are discussion that J-10 and Flankers are already extremely maneuverable and not worth the energy bleed in a future dominated by BVR anyways. We shall see in coming years!
Did you notice the different attachment points between 2d and 3d nozzles,

The 2d one was squarish with ventilation holes or grid pattern?

Is it there to reduce the IR heat signature?
To me 2d one is more beefier(with ceramic like coating) to reduce ir output

Correct me if iam wrong
 

SexyChineseLady

New Member
Joined
Oct 3, 2016
Messages
5,178
Likes
4,008
Did you notice the different attachment points between 2d and 3d nozzles,

The 2d one was squarish with ventilation holes or grid pattern?

Is it there to reduce the IR heat signature?
To me 2d one is more beefier(with ceramic like coating) to reduce ir output

Correct me if iam wrong
2D design is more complicated and yet gives you less freedom of movement and more energy bleed and is heavier!

So why do it? Because of stealth. All differences on a 2D TVC is ultimately related to stealth or offset something related to stealth.
 

SexyChineseLady

New Member
Joined
Oct 3, 2016
Messages
5,178
Likes
4,008
How are you people trying cope that short coming,like putting limiting on angle of attack using 2d nozzle
Not much anyone can do except build very powerful engine for their respective class. WS-15 is reported to be 180kN. WS-19 at 110kN.
 

SexyChineseLady

New Member
Joined
Oct 3, 2016
Messages
5,178
Likes
4,008
Is there any improvement wrt mtow capacity and lifecycle improvement?
Yes, this engine is replacing the AL-31F (India also uses this for Su-30MKI!)

Thrust is 140 kN compared to 123 kN on the AL-31.

MTBO is twice that of the Chinese modified AL-31F so about 3000 hours.

China had extended life of AL-31 used on early versions of J-10 and J-11 from 900 to 1500 hours. This was reported by Jane's through Russian sources in 2010.


ASIA PACIFIC
Date Posted: 08-Sep-2010


Jane's Defence Weekly


China makes modifications to Russian Salyut AL-31F jet engine

Reuben F Johnson JDW Correspondent - Kiev

Key Points
The PLAAF has developed its own upgrade for the Russian-made Salyut AL-31F jet engine

The development demonstrates that the Chinese have achieved near autonomy in supporting their fighters' Russian-made engines



The Chinese People's Liberation Army Air Force (PLAAF) has developed its own service life extension modifications for the Russian-made Salyut AL-31F engine, a Moscow-based defence and foreign policy think-tank has reported.

The modifications to the AL-31F/FN P.2 series engine increase its operational limits by more than 65 per cent - from 900 to 1,500 flight hours, according to the privately owned Centre for the Analysis of Strategies and Technologies (CAST).

The AL-31F engine is the powerplant for several types of aircraft in the PLAAF inventory: the Sukhoi Su-27 (which is also licence-produced at the Shenyang Aircraft Works as the J-11), the Su-30MKK and the Chengdu Aerospace Corporation J-10. The AL-31FN is a special derivative of the original AL-31F design that was developed by the Salyut plant in Moscow for a single-engine application to be fitted to the J-10.

The service life modifications were reportedly developed at the PLAAF Overhaul Plant Number 5719. The key to the service life extension is a specific set of improved, Chinese-made components that are part of what is described as a "re-manufacturing kit" that is introduced during the process of a full-scale remanufacturing and overhaul process.

The plant is located near the city of Chengdu in Sichuan province, employs 2,000 personnel and is reported to be a model of innovation within the PLAAF's network of repair plants. During the past several years the facility has initiated 63 different research and development programmes and has been awarded more than 20 state prizes for achievements in technological innovation. In the same time period, the plant's assets have more than doubled from CNY1.1 billion (USD147.2 million) in 2004 to CNY2.9 billion today.

The plant's officials credit the success of their overhaul process to a decision taken in 2004, when some of the first AL-31F engines were presented to the plant by the PLAAF for overhaul. A decision was taken, according to the Chinese news sources originally cited, to completely reorganise the overhaul process. This streamlining of the overhaul disassembly and servicing line resulted in a 27.3 per cent decrease in the time required to complete an overhaul and increased the plant's production capacity by 60 per cent.


This level of improvement in the engine's design demonstrates that the Chinese have achieved near autonomy in the support of these Russian-made engines. Russian specialists who spoke to Jane's state that this is "another example of how the technology sold to the Chinese during the 1990s has now been fully assimilated by them. It is only a matter of time before the engines that China produces will be as good as or better than anything designed here in Russia".
 

Alamarathan

New Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2022
Messages
1,217
Likes
4,751
Country flag
MTBO is twice that of the Chinese modified AL-31F so about 3000 hours.
Got it,

Thrust is 140 kN compared to 123 kN on the AL-31.
Extra output means the air frame needs to be strengthened to handle the extra stress,thats i asked is there any improvement over mtow(maximum take off weight)

Does it carry more payload?

China had extended life of AL-31 used on early versions of J-10 and J-11 from 900 to 1500 hours.
How? Did you change the metallurgy of the blades?


Anyway, its an decent midcycle upgrade...
 

SexyChineseLady

New Member
Joined
Oct 3, 2016
Messages
5,178
Likes
4,008
Got it,


Extra output means the air frame needs to be strengthened to handle the extra stress,thats i asked is there any improvement over mtow(maximum take off weight)

Does it carry more payload?


How? Did you change the metallurgy of the blades?


Anyway, its an decent midcycle upgrade...
These are J-10Bs in current service so I think not much can be done to basic structure of air frames during engine switch. These are not new builds.

Payload and speed should be upgraded slong with thrust but depends on PLAAF allowing more ordnance or just using extra thrust for speed and keeping current loadout packages.

Metallurgy had advanced quite a bit. This was pre-2010 regarding China's upgrade of the AL-31.

The service life modifications were reportedly developed at the PLAAF Overhaul Plant Number 5719. The key to the service life extension is a specific set of improved, Chinese-made components that are part of what is described as a "re-manufacturing kit" that is introduced during the process of a full-scale remanufacturing and overhaul process.
 

Alamarathan

New Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2022
Messages
1,217
Likes
4,751
Country flag
These are J-10Bs in current service so I think not much can be done to basic structure of air frames during engine switch. These are not new builds.

Metallurgy had advanced quite a bit. This was pre-2010 regarding China's upgrade of the AL-31.

The service life modifications were reportedly developed at the PLAAF Overhaul Plant Number 5719. The key to the service life extension is a specific set of improved, Chinese-made components that are part of what is described as a "re-manufacturing kit" that is introduced during the process of a full-scale remanufacturing and overhaul process.
Thats fine yaar,is there any improvement on the maximum payload,
I asked that twice

improvement wrt mtow
improvement over mtow(maximum take off weight)

Does it carry more payload?
My guess is hardpoint and the airframe is locked to the existing MTOW,that's why you been dodging my question? 😜

Is that right
 

SexyChineseLady

New Member
Joined
Oct 3, 2016
Messages
5,178
Likes
4,008
Thats fine yaar,is there any improvement on the maximum payload,
I asked that twice




My guess is hardpoint and the airframe is locked to the existing MTOW,that's why you been dodging my question? 😜

Is that right
Not dodging :) I said airframe of existing aircraft is unlikely to change. Speed and load will increase with uprated engine. But depends on PLAAF to allow new loadout packages or just use extra power for performance.
 

Alamarathan

New Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2022
Messages
1,217
Likes
4,751
Country flag
Not dodging :) I said airframe of existing aircraft is unlikely to change. Speed and load will increase with uprated engine. But depends on PLAAF to allow new loadout packages or just use extra power for performance.
Yeah no straight answer :daru: got it:frog:


Do you have any data on fuel consumption?
Bcuz more power means more fuel burn which equals less range.
 

Articles

Top