Naval Aviation Engine Lifespans.

In that wumao thread, there was an interesting discussion for a small moment about service life of naval aviation engines.

I'll just list them off;
>Su-33 - Saturn AL-31
2000h
>J-11 - WS10
1500h
>Rafale M - M88-2
6000h
>F/A-18 - F404
6000h
>F35 C - F135
8000h
*full life-cycle of the engines
**WS10 engines are most likely completely spent after the reported 1500 hours and get cannibalised, which is in contrast to Western overhaul process

The differences in Western vs Eastern engines are just staggering.
How did the idea of "rugged" Soviet equipment even materialise is beyond me.

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >How did the idea of "rugged" Soviet equipment even materialise is beyond me.
    Largely just boomers impressed that parade equipment and gear meant to replace aging ratty gear sold off to westerners to fund some General's yacht was in good condition and then hyped some over-stitched 1920s design webbing made in 1987 they bought for 2.99 at a gun show in 1991

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Yeah, the myth is being dispelled these days, with our without Russo-Ukrainian War.

      >How did the idea of "rugged" Soviet equipment even materialise is beyond me.
      probably because of rugged landing gear designs, if one part is overdesigned it must surely mean the avionics and engines are also good and planes can operate from runways fodded with gravel

      >planes can operate from runways fodded with gravel
      I remember that always being mentioned in military equipment documentaries and shows, that and the flying-body/3D vectoring.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Yeah, the myth is being dispelled these days, with our without Russo-Ukrainian War.

        If one bothered with WWII, Soviet stuff wasn't even supposed to last

  2. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >How did the idea of "rugged" Soviet equipment even materialise is beyond me.
    probably because of rugged landing gear designs, if one part is overdesigned it must surely mean the avionics and engines are also good and planes can operate from runways fodded with gravel

  3. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >In that wumao thread, there was an interesting discussion for a small moment about service life of naval aviation engines.
    "I was arguing with some moron about something stupid when a thread 404ed. I will force you to see my reply now, because I am very important."

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >butthurt amerimutt makes up numbers puts it on a blog then cites himself
      >discuss

      I didn't write a reply, I was reading the thread post-mortem.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        "I want you to think about my very important ideas, which btw relate to this thread that 404ed, and I raise this context without linking the thread because I definitely am not just using that as the thinnest of pretexts for public masturbation"

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          inb4 ugh FINE here's the thread you frickin crypto wumao who just wants moar publicity for YOUR thread!! (not my thread, don't even know what thread you're talking about here OP you giant sperg)

          inb4 ugh FINE here's the sources for these engine lifespan figures you FRICKIN wumao!!! (you provide the sources for things upfront, homosexual)

          inb4 congratulations OP, your thread has begun!

          inb4 Thread archived. You cannot reply anymore.

          fricking homosexual

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          k

          >>J-11 - WS10
          >1500h
          That was the low engine life of early WS-10A of +10 years ago when it was too unreliable for a single engine aircraft, it's normal for any engine improve it's reliability and claimed service life after testing in real a aircraft. And afaik China engine life target is ~4000h as base, the current version is the "B" (the C is the variant mod for the J-20) and it's good enough for an exportable single engine aircraft, make your own conclusions.

          >and get cannibalised
          More like upgraded to a modern standard otherwise you could say the same about early F100 and F119.
          You don't cannibalise old engines of early batches made during the low-rate-initial-production if the same engine is being produced in serie as your main military turbofan...

          > and Russia has been gradually increasing the reported engine life for their RD-93 and AL-31/41 to >3000 hr iirc.

          >That was the low engine life of early WS-10A of +10 years ago when it was too unreliable for a single engine aircraft
          It was stated that WS10 is rated for 1500fh in 2017 by the state...
          >And afaik China engine life target is ~4000h as base
          Yeah, and I target to kill 1000 vatniks by tomorrow but it ain't happening
          >it's good enough for an exportable single engine aircraft
          Implying fricking Pakistan can pick and chose?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Proceed to step negative 2:
            >inb4 ugh FINE here's the thread you frickin crypto wumao who just wants moar publicity for YOUR thread!! (not my thread, don't even know what thread you're talking about here OP you giant sperg)

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              meds

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                You made a meta thread about arguing with frickin asiatics in slide threads. You are at my beck and call for 300 replies or until 404, whichever comes first.

                You will proceed to step negative 2.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                tricked, nta
                seethe more though i am enjoying this thread with nothing to contribute

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >nothing to contribute
                Nor do I. There is nothing anyone could contribute to this thread. Just enforcement. OP (you) is vain. It's important to remind him that is a bug to be crushed underfoot.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                You seethe a bit too much, vatnik.
                It isn't healthy for you.

              • 3 weeks ago
                sage

                You seethe a bit too much, vatnik.
                It isn't healthy for you.

                holy frick shut the frick up you insufferable c**ts

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            And for the J-11, 7-8 years ago... Pre-2015 was even worse...
            Now post the engine rated life for the WS-10B or C.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              I can not find an official document about the C engine for the life of me.
              You speak Chinese, so you find it.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      seething

  4. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >butthurt amerimutt makes up numbers puts it on a blog then cites himself
    >discuss

  5. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >How did the idea of "rugged" Soviet equipment even materialise is beyond me.
    Old commie stuff was simpler, less sophisticated than its western counterparts. That made it comparatively easier and cheaper to repair

  6. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >>J-11 - WS10
    >1500h
    That was the low engine life of early WS-10A of +10 years ago when it was too unreliable for a single engine aircraft, it's normal for any engine improve it's reliability and claimed service life after testing in real a aircraft. And afaik China engine life target is ~4000h as base, the current version is the "B" (the C is the variant mod for the J-20) and it's good enough for an exportable single engine aircraft, make your own conclusions.

    >and get cannibalised
    More like upgraded to a modern standard otherwise you could say the same about early F100 and F119.
    You don't cannibalise old engines of early batches made during the low-rate-initial-production if the same engine is being produced in serie as your main military turbofan...

    > and Russia has been gradually increasing the reported engine life for their RD-93 and AL-31/41 to >3000 hr iirc.

  7. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >How did the idea of "rugged" Soviet equipment even materialise is beyond me.
    They weren't talking about jet engines

  8. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Anybody who knows anything about jet engines has always known this.

  9. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >How did the idea of "rugged" Soviet equipment even materialise is beyond me.
    Mostly because they do things like the Su-34 and MiG-29 being grass field capable or every APC and IFV being amphibious.
    The Soviets knew they were outmatched and would lose a lot of infrastructure so designed things to (in theory) operate with less support.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Mostly because they do things like the Su-34 and MiG-29 being grass field capable or every APC and IFV being amphibious.

      NATO nations literally operated the MiG-29 - including Germany. And everyone knew that those planes weren't designed to last and the German Airforce was happy to gift them to Poland for some political brownie points.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >designed things to (in theory) operate with less support.
        OP, mate, observer it, read it.

        >Mostly because they do things like the Su-34 and MiG-29
        Completely unrelated to their engines. That "ruggedness" is related to intake design (air slots, retractable mesh), in general current russian engines have move parts and require more maintenance than western equivalents.

        There is something none of you are understanding, I answering the question
        >How did the idea of "rugged" Soviet equipment even materialise
        Idea is the key word, normies and the media never bothered with details like engine metalurgy or engine life. The media reported Soviet supersonic fighters could do something ours couldn't and played it up as a capability gap because fear sells papers and papers sales dive ad revenue.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          I guess, that was my first idea.
          Simplicity of the arguments for and complexity of arguments against but, why did no experts do anything and laugh at these clowns in the media ... idk.
          But then again, Russians had a T-34 shilling bureau until 2004.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The media has a profit motive to stir fear and ignore facts, state run media could run the facts but it would come under political pressure from places like the pentagon that might also want lies and fear to motivate public support for increasing military budgets.
            The reality is the world is made of motives and very few of them give a frick about facts.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >The media has a profit motive to stir fear and ignore facts
              Fear mongering, contrarianism and inflation of conflict, Holy Grails of modern journalism.
              >but it would come under political pressure from places like the pentagon that might also want lies and fear to motivate public support for increasing military budgets.
              Yes, a very problematic phenomenon.
              >The reality is the world is made of motives and very few of them give a frick about facts.
              But in this case, they ended up furthering and strengthening russian psyops by appearing weak which is causing instability, in USA unleast.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                No one gives a frick about "the nation" only their own personal gain. As society gets more atomized and people feel less connection to those around them you see individualism rise as something the people hold in higher regard than community.
                If the west as a whole doesn't ditch neoliberalism and individualism as our guiding philosophies it's all going to come crashing down in the next century.
                Those that made a fortune on the ride down will leave and use their economic influence to do it all over again somewhere else while the rest of us will be left picking up the pieces to rebuild just in time for the same dynasties to return.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Let's just agree to disagree.

                Engine life is a "suggestion", that's why it isn't 3785.3 hours but 4000 hours, the EOL is defined by inspections irl.
                In general the hot section (combustion chamber, first turbine stator, HP turbines and postcombustion) is the main limiting factor. If they improve the turbine blades and stator cooling and alloys then it's natural that the service life would improve without major changes. In first place their limited engine life during the 1970-1990 came from over-rating their engines because they couldn't catch up the US with their small turbofans, Russia never achieved parity of thrust at the same engine life after the 60s.

                Saffran has been struggling with 2100K materials for quite some time, what chance does a company with 5% of their revenue has?

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >SafFran
                Reminds me when I would add an F to "Rafale" for no reason back in the day.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Saffran has been struggling with 2100K materials for quite some time, what chance does a company with 5% of their revenue has?
                Essentially none because Russia never achieved commercial success with their turbofans for airliners. Military turbofans are anecdotal in the industry and that all what Russia has, their R&D is mostly stuck in the 80s-90s. They had good prototypes but nothing mass produced...
                Even China ditched russian low-bypass turbofans and simply copied American-French designs (CFM56, and its core).

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Yeah, imagine if Safran had to live off of M88 engine, they would go undee years ago.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >designed things to (in theory) operate with less support.
      OP, mate, observer it, read it.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Mostly because they do things like the Su-34 and MiG-29
      Completely unrelated to their engines. That "ruggedness" is related to intake design (air slots, retractable mesh), in general current russian engines have move parts and require more maintenance than western equivalents.

  10. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Okay so….the AL-41 is 4000 hours life, and it’s basically an upgraded AL-31, so why does it have TWICE the service life?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Engine life is a "suggestion", that's why it isn't 3785.3 hours but 4000 hours, the EOL is defined by inspections irl.
      In general the hot section (combustion chamber, first turbine stator, HP turbines and postcombustion) is the main limiting factor. If they improve the turbine blades and stator cooling and alloys then it's natural that the service life would improve without major changes. In first place their limited engine life during the 1970-1990 came from over-rating their engines because they couldn't catch up the US with their small turbofans, Russia never achieved parity of thrust at the same engine life after the 60s.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *