WS-10 is a Chinese engine, not a clone IMO.

The development history of the WS10 is well established, the Chinese used the core of the CFM International CFM56 as a starting point. The core section of that engine is based on the GE-F101 as fitted to the Rockwell B1 but also used as the basis of the GE-F101 Derivative Fighter Engine(DFE) that was fitted experimentally to the F14 and F16. The GE-F101DFE was developed into the GE-F110 that was fitted to the F14, F16 and some F15.

That in effect makes the WS10 a reverse engineered clone of the GE engine, that is not to takeaway or besmirch the challenges the Chinese would of faced. The core of the CFM56 whilst based on a fighter engine would of been optimised for civilian use with fan blade, material and tolerance differences. To stop the engine burning itself out would of taken much R&D…as has been reported. The earlier WS10 was short-lived, underpowered and prone to compressor stalls. Only after significant redesign work has China got the engine to the point of service acceptance.

Now when it comes to semantics, yes China had to design and build a new engine by itself but rather then reinvent the wheel they used an existing design as a starting point and to make clear my earlier observation it certainly isn’t a clone of the AL31 as is widely but incorrectly reported by many sources.

My money would be on some form of nav-attack pod, my only question mark would be poor field of view.

I totally agree that it would of been an excellent complimentary capability to the RN and its Cruise missile equipped subs…the only problem I see with that ideal world is the institutional hatred of the RAF within the higher echelons of the RN! Considering all the attempts at wiping out the RAF over the years by the boys in dark blue (and green) or at least belittling everything about the light blue I see what should be seen as a positive development for combined operations being perceived as “pissing in their pond” and a budgetary threat!

Also agree that Torpy being a pointy strike boy being paranoid over the protection of the deep and persistent strike budget! Ironic really considering that with a few messed up SSDR decisions over the last couple of defence reviews and that is verging on dead and buried! Actually if it does come to be that its back to F35B and STOVL “Deep and persistent strike” IS dead and buried! (That’s not a dig at your preferences buddy but we can’t ignore that over the last fifteen years the RAF’s future deep penetration strike plans have been whittled down to virtually nothing). Then again if the plan is cruise missiles (Tomahawk/Stormshadow) and UCAV for penetration strike then maybe we need to look to the future. In that respect get on with the Storm shadow integration for Typhoon, have a proper look at a palletised or pylon based solution for the A400 and kick off a proper look at adding a cruise missile type to the frigate/destroyer fleet.

Its hardly surprising that Glenn Torpy wanted that photo suppressed, Nimrod MRA4, Stormshadow and A330 MRTT would of given the RAF a true quick reaction global strike capability. The First Sea Lords of the Royal navy would of had a supreme hissy fit as it offers a faster reaction time to a situation then the Tomahawk equipped SSN. There was also talk of putting Paveway IV on Nimrod MRA4 as well…

Anyhow such is life!

Stick CFT´s to the Typhoon´s T2 and T3A and the problem solved, at least this one, but if the Typhoon fleet is used on out of area operations doing long range strike, recon, ATA, etc, another arises, what will the RAF use to do QRA?

Indeedy! Looking beyond the myth pedalled to Joe Public by those in the media and other self interested parties that too many Typhoon have been procured. With the selling on of part of Tranche 2 without replacement, effective cancellation of Tranche 3B and early retirement of Tranche 1 (including a significant proportion of he two seater airframes) meeting QRA requirements and the projected OSD of the type will be problematic.

We have a denial from China and evidence of a fully comprehensive next generation program thus rather negating a need for further Russian fighters. The main bottleneck was WS-10 availability but that has been worked around with judicious further procurement of AL31 and reusing engines from retiring Su27. All future Chinese fighters are earmarked to have indigenous engines and the latest WS-10 outperforms the AL31 fitted to already inducted Sukhoi types.

I can’t help but feel there is a certain degree of Snobbery from particular Russian quarters of the idea that China is capable of producing modern defence technology.

All the rumours seem to come out of Russian news sources and unconfirmed briefing by Russian officials.

Would China be interested in the Su-35 out of a purely technology driven R&D basis?…more then certain! But do they actually need the Su-35 when their domestic industry seems to be more then capable of meeting their modernisation needs now?…No! So we have to take these reports with a pinch of Vodka and salt…

Well the question is:

Is the engine issue still ongoing?

We know in the past that there was an issue supplying enough WS-10 for the J-11B fleet, it related to quality control issues leading to high wastage – this has apparently been ironed out. It also looks like China partially sorted the issue by speeding up retirement of older Su27 regiments and reusing the engines in early J-11B batches.

The last major AL31 procurement was to support further induction of J-10 regiments. This was due to earlier WS-10 variants being prone to compressor stalls with adverse airflow and throttle slams. China clearly intends to move over to WS-10 for the J-10 and they are testing an airframe with the later high reliability WS-10B variant. The recent batch of J-10 tested and delivered by CAC are probably some of the last to be delivered with AL31. Any unused new AL31 are probably attrition replacements.

As has already been pointed out Russia appears to be rather indignant that China is turning into a high technology country and the on off reports about procurement of various fighters appears to be mischief making by the looks of it.

It looks like continued procurement by China of Russian defence equipment is more about filling gaps then anything else these days. I would even class the newer J-11B and J-15 as stop gaps that provides capable multirole fighters with minimal risk. CAC and SAC certainly have future types in the pipeline…It also has to be remembered that the WS-10 is China’s first truly modern high performance fighter engine and even then it traces its heritage back to the GE101.

I think draw down of remaining Su27SK and even early J11A regiments will proceed at a fairly brisk pace especially as their Russian missile stocks time expire. Cannibalisation of components rather then upgrade seems more sensible for Chinas legacy Sukhoi fleet…considering the Su27 procurement choice was made in 1991 thats hardly surprising. Also I think China has found the J-10 to be highly agreeable performance wise, leading to an increased procurement run of the type.

As Swerve is pointing out A400 effectively sits between the C130J and C17 performance wise. There are two main reasons why the A400 is listed as a a C130 rival:

1) There are a significant number if airforces that have elderly C130 in need of replacement.

2) It solves the major issue with the C130 of having a small cargo box vs installed power.

EADS already have a more then adequate rival to the C27J in the CN235/CN295 that is selling more then well. A twin engine A400 variant would be as Swerve says a C130 rival and would suffer the same problem that the KC390 suffers…Lockheed Martin can undercut any new development with a C130 economy version…which shock horror is exactly what LockMart have done with the C130XJ!