J-15 carrier fighter thread

Alfa_Particle

Junior Member
Registered Member
No we don't.

Until we have imagery of the quality similar to what I posted in 4694 above, or if there are credible individuals on the Chinese grapevine directly stating that a given airframe or aircraft type (whether it's a specific J-15B airframe or the type as a whole), at best we can say that we have imagery of a J-15B which possibly might have shorter nozzles than a standard Al-31 but where the effect of artefact or imagery angle cannot be ruled out in producing it.
Yes, we do.
IMG_20240818_115754.jpg

Unless you still plan on insisting that these are somehow AL-31s, which across all J-15 airframes have nozzles that extend beyond the horizontal stabs from most angles:
IMG_20240818_120047.jpg

And not WS-10s which clearly do not:
(w/ newer nozzles)
images(5).jpg

w/ older nozzles, (which you still can see that they don't extend beyond the stabs):
1725447764523.jpeg

Or somehow they would just shorten the AL-31 nozzles with no apparent logical explanation even though all the J-15s and J-15Bs that precede it don't, I don't see why the engine in Fig. 1 wouldn't be or shouldn't be said as WS-10s.

I'm saying that people need to be very judicious and cautious about associating "J-15B" and "WS-10" together, especially outside of this forum.
Even in this forum, there are a whole bunch of things that can be posted and speculated on, on the basis of incomplete indicators, for the purposes of discussion or interest. I have a half dozen topics myself with similar extents of circumstantial indicators that have been posted before in various places that can easily spawn a case of "XYZ may be the case" but I'm choosing to actively not talk about it
That's because being judicious about what is actually discussed and exercising the obligation to stfu is actually quite important, because it means readers of this forum without the discipline or experience to not circulate things, won't run off away with discussions they've seen here.


If something is unconfirmed, especially for a topic that is "significant" (such as a fighter previously using foreign engines potentially using a domestic engine), then standards for confirmation should be high, and if confirmation does not meet standards then there is an obligation and a responsibility to ensure that unintentional misinformation doesn't occur.

In a more ideal world, sure. But realistically, some people still won't. Especially not people outside this forum, let's be honest here.

So, I don't see the point be in denying evidence which although admittedly is not the clearest of all pictures, is apparent enough to identify that they are indeed not AL-31s and most likely WS-10s.
 

Attachments

  • 1725447534745.jpeg
    1725447534745.jpeg
    22.1 KB · Views: 18

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
Yes, we do.
View attachment 135204

Unless you still plan on insisting that these are somehow AL-31s, which across all J-15 airframes have nozzles that extend beyond the horizontal stabs from most angles:
View attachment 135205

And not WS-10s which clearly do not:
(w/ newer nozzles)
View attachment 135207

w/ older nozzles, (which you still can see that they don't extend beyond the stabs):
View attachment 135208

No, we don't.

The image in the first picture is insufficient to meet standards for confirmation of its status as "J-15B using WS-10".

The most that can be conceded to it is "there is a possibility that is a J-15B using a WS-10" but we've been burned too many times in past years for past aircraft type, for imagery of insufficient quality that everyone considered to be a domestic engine which ultimately wasn't.



Or somehow they would just shorten the AL-31 nozzles with no apparent logical explanation even though all the J-15s and J-15Bs that precede it don't, I don't see why the engine in Fig. 1 wouldn't be or shouldn't be said as WS-10s.




In a more ideal world, sure. But realistically, some people still won't. Especially not people outside this forum, let's be honest here.

So, I don't see the point be in denying evidence which although admittedly is not the clearest of all pictures, is apparent enough to identify that they are indeed not AL-31s and most likely WS-10s.

I don't see why given we are meant to be one of the more proactive and knowledgeable English language communities, that we should not be the ones to work towards that more ideal world.

If anything we have a degree of culpability and responsibility in framing the discussion here so that people outside who read this forum don't walk away with a wrong impression that ends up getting circulated.

As for the "evidence" -- like I replied to one of your posts last week, at most what we can say for that one single picture is that there is a possibility that it may represent a J-15B using WS-10s (post 4678) however it is very far from confirmation.
Therefore we need to tailor our descriptions and discussions of it accordingly.
 

Alfa_Particle

Junior Member
Registered Member
No, we don't.

The image in the first picture is insufficient to meet standards for confirmation of its status as "J-15B using WS-10".
Again, yes, we do.

And yes, it's sufficient. If you'll only accept clear, HD 4K images as sufficient evidence, I don't think you're being realistic. Being too cautious and burying your head in sand won't do anything any favors.

You also fail to provide any specific reasons of why this evidence isn't usable, citing vague past experiences. Any reasons why this image might be misleading *in terms of it, just a singular J-15B airframe, using WS-10s?* Meanwhile, no AL-31 engines has nozzles shorter than the horizontal stabs, so this pattern holds unless you can offer contradicting examples or logical reasons why it wouldn't.

but we've been burned too many times in past years for past aircraft type, for imagery of insufficient quality that everyone considered to be a domestic engine which ultimately wasn't.
This is pretty anecdotal, no? Past mistakes do not automatically disqualify current evidence. If so, it's an unjustified assumption. Each photo should be evaluated on its own merits, and the visual evidence at hand clearly indicates a noticeably (significantly, even) shorter nozzle length not seen on other J-15 airframes except for the one with WS-10s. Your argument holds no weight if you can't point to specific reasons why this imagery isn't sufficient this time.

I've seen you bring up the "we've been burned too many times in the past..." quite a few times now IIRC, yet you fail to provide even a single example of this happening in this scenario. Has there been an image so horribly deformed with so much artifacts that makes the AL-31 look shorter than it is here? That the nozzles, somehow not clear enough to be discerned as AL-31s yet clear enough to see that it's shorter than the tails? I sincerely doubt it.

Without clear examples and/or specifics, you're relying on a generalisation and false equivalence to dismiss the current case, which is neither a valid argument or logically sound. I showed a discernable evidence with clear supporting evidence, that the image does show a J-15B with engines having characteristics only matching WS-10s. It remains unrefuted.

If anything we have a degree of culpability and responsibility in framing the discussion here so that people outside who read this forum don't walk away with a wrong impression that ends up getting circulated.
It's true, and I agree that we should aim for high standards, but being cautious doesn't mean disregarding usable evidence. Shouldn't the responsibility of this forum be to analyze evidence rationally, not just dismissing it outright without *valid*, non-vague reasons? You're calling for a level of absolute certainty that at this point in time, is both unrealistic and unnecessary in this context. I'm not claiming it with 100% certainty, but rather presenting a well-supported analysis based on clear, observable difference.

Ignoring this would be less responsible than discussing the most likely conclusion.
 

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
Again, yes, we do.

And yes, it's sufficient. If you'll only accept clear, HD 4K images as sufficient evidence, I don't think you're being realistic. Being too cautious and burying your head in sand won't do anything any favors.

You also fail to provide any specific reasons of why this evidence isn't usable, citing vague past experiences. Any reasons why this image might be misleading *in terms of it, just a singular J-15B airframe, using WS-10s?* Meanwhile, no AL-31 engines has nozzles shorter than the horizontal stabs, so this pattern holds unless you can offer contradicting examples or logical reasons why it wouldn't.

I don't need HD 4K pictures, but I want something a bit better than 360p taken in questionable conditions.


As for "specific reasons" -- I've already explained that the quality of the imagery and potential for artefact creating illusion means that we cannot take it as confirmation.
I am happy to agree that in the specific picture you're referencing it is possible that it may represent a J-15B airframe with WS-10s, but no more than that. Any claims more confident than that will need a higher threshold of evidence.


There is no penalty for being cautious and acknowledging that we've been fooled before so we should not be fooled again.
If anything burying one's head in the sand is not recognizing that the credibility of PLA watching requires that we do not make claims which then have to be walked back.



This is pretty anecdotal, no? Past mistakes do not automatically disqualify current evidence. If so, it's an unjustified assumption. Each photo should be evaluated on its own merits, and the visual evidence at hand clearly indicates a noticeably (significantly, even) shorter nozzle length not seen on other J-15 airframes except for the one with WS-10s. Your argument holds no weight if you can't point to specific reasons why this imagery isn't sufficient this time.

I've seen you bring up the "we've been burned too many times in the past..." quite a few times now IIRC, yet you fail to provide even a single example of this happening in this scenario. Has there been an image so horribly deformed with so much artifacts that makes the AL-31 look shorter than it is here? That the nozzles, somehow not clear enough to be discerned as AL-31s yet clear enough to see that it's shorter than the tails? I sincerely doubt it.

Without clear examples and/or specifics, you're relying on a generalisation and false equivalence to dismiss the current case, which is neither a valid argument or logically sound. I showed a discernable evidence with clear supporting evidence, that the image does show a J-15B with engines having characteristics only matching WS-10s. It remains unrefuted.


It's true, and I agree that we should aim for high standards, but being cautious doesn't mean disregarding usable evidence. Shouldn't the responsibility of this forum be to analyze evidence rationally, not just dismissing it outright without *valid*, non-vague reasons? You're calling for a level of absolute certainty that at this point in time, is both unrealistic and unnecessary in this context. I'm not claiming it with 100% certainty, but rather presenting a well-supported analysis based on clear, observable difference.

Ignoring this would be less responsible than discussing the most likely conclusion.

As I wrote back in post 4678, I think it is reasonable to state that it is possible that specific image you're talking about may represent a J-15B airframe with WS-10 engines and not anything more beyond that at this stage -- that is a responsible way of analyzing the evidence.

I am not calling for a level of absolute certainty, but rather calling for a level of people to be vigilant about making statements which pose a risk of needing to be walked back which may then damage the credibility of PLA watching as a whole.


I don't see any issue with saying that "with current evidence, there is a possibility that there exists a J-15B airframe which may be powered by WS-10" as a very contained and regulated way of assessing the evidence, and it is one which I would feel as comfortable discussing here as one I would be to discuss on Twitter, Reddit or other more hostile communities or forums. That's the level of standard we should be aiming for, so that we can check ourselves and not get high on our own supply.
 

Deino

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
Well PLA-symbols, low-visibility markings, no visible red prototype numbers and a shark-logo on the tail … I think its almost save to assume, this could be the first image of an operational J-15B.

(Image via @正人君子钢弹桑 from Weibo)

IMG_1601.jpeg
 

Deino

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
Well PLA-symbols, low-visibility markings, no visible red prototype numbers and a shark-logo on the tail … I think its almost save to assume, this could be the first image of an operational J-15B.

(Image via @正人君子钢弹桑 from Weibo)

View attachment 135868


Hmmm ??! Seems as if the same aircraft was already seen in December 2022!

1726501349736.png
 
Top