You're most welcome to provide operational J-15s with ws-10.
Last edited:
J-15 carrier fighter thread
- Thread starter Jeff Head
- Start date
Whether the J-15 eventually uses the WS-10 may not have anything to do with why you think they currently don’t. If you want to 实事求是 you should mind your critical self examination.
Objective criteria here is pesence of WS-10 currently. Like it, not like it, it's the test. Yes, against old, outdated engine, which is still installed on operational jets as of 2025 at the very least.
Which is why i am somewhat perplexed at your word attack - do you value your own word so low? As to throw self-reflection back at me when you don't even doubt you're wrong - just to stand for a vibe you like.
What's the point? To make me feel ashamed for a fellow forum member? You succeeded.
The objective criteria doesn’t by itself exclude all possible hypothesis except the one you’re preferential to. “实事求是”. The point is maybe you shouldn’t be so smug and self assured when you have nothing to go by but your own subjective speculations.
You sound pretty upset over a pretty basic rational point. Don’t be so sensitive lol. Don’t need you to feel ashamed for me. You would do well to save some of that shame capacity for yourself.
Last edited:
There's something we see, there's something we don't.
What we see is verified. What we don't is wishful conjecture - even if it can be true.
What J-15T(D)s fly with, I saw with my own eyes. For you, I don't know, but either way there's no photos of operational J-15s with WS-10s.
Which makes this entire discussion thoroughly useless.
You’re obfuscating. The point is there are many reasons why an engine may not be adopted beyond what you like to blindly conjecture. Unless you’re in the room where they’re making the decisions there’s quite a lot you don’t see. Your blind conjectures are what’s useless. If you’re that devoted to those kinds of exercises maybe exercise a bit more care when you want to say things like 实事求是
Last edited:
AL-31F is:
-1990s early variant of 1980s engine, with less than spectacular engine life metrics(3-6 times less) - even when compared to known minimums for WS-10 from several years ago;
-which, from day 1, is far too weak for even single seater naval flanker (and also for a twin seater land one; now add two together, as twin naval flanker won't get lighter);
-which, unless in great secrecy, unreflected by OEM, was never seriously upgraded (including for power generation - while getting big AESA radar and escort EW set among other users).
-which still has to be procured from abroad (and, moreover, China is effectively a single customer of this variant; it has no future).
I may fight it with Particle on whether there's anything better on the table, but what's undeniable is that it's certainly bad. Bad things are getting replaced with better things as a rule of thumb. Unless there's no money, but this isn't out case.
The only explanation, especially when China builds new variants of aircraft and new aircraft carriers with new maintenance facilities from day 1, is that as bad as it is, replacement is unavailable.
Last edited:
“Replacement is unavailable” could imply several possibilities ranging from inadequate performance to lack of supply chain availability to lack of urgency for initial production to aforementioned political motivations. Unless you have evidence or some other well founded rationale for thinking one of these is likelier than the other that you’re not sharing (in which case you should probably share that reason), I’m not sure where you’re drawing your abrasive certitude from.
Last edited:
Lack of urgency? For newest frontline and EW aircraft(1) for the most demanding niche(2) presented at a highest level in Zhuhai and especially over Tiananmen(3) is rather weak assumption.
So is the lack of supply chain availability, for the same reason. They're priority customers, not back of the line ones.
And for politics, I honestly don't register it. It would make sense to at least keep good/modern Ru engines, all things being equal. Those are old and bad ones.
Unless, of course, they're unique.
We don't know, we only know engine persists into 2026. Most likely explanation is the one we had all along, thrust response and predictable reliability at sea conditions. It isn't guaranteed, but until WS-10s make it to the carriers, it's the best we have.
Lack of urgency to switch engines or reticence to switch due to supply chain uncertainty are both actually very consistent with the need to get airframes out quicker to fill imminent needs. Switching engines requires some extra development time and production line alterations. If they started development with the AL-31s and they just want to get airframes out the door ASAP sticking with AL-31s is the much faster option.