J-20 5th Gen Fighter Thread VI

[Inst]

Step 1: consider the author and their track record for their past predictions, including their selection of sources (and the track record of said sources)
Step 2: consider the claim itself and whether it jibes with the existing understanding of the topic in question

Except you're throwing the baby out with the bathwater here. Effectively, your entire attitude is that if Minnie Chan, for whatever reason, decides to cite you on a subject, via Step 1, you are now no longer a useful source.

As I've explained before, Minnie Chan has her systemic biases; she can't properly evaluate the accuracy of her Western sources, and she has a relatively weak technical background. But her Chinese sources deserve evaluation; i.e, Minnie Chan's article shouldn't be treated as a gestalt (the article is credible or uncredible) but rather we pick it apart for claims and sources for those claims.

I would say that Minnie Chan's claims that she's gotten Chinese think-tankers to say that the Chinese are targeting 200 J-20s by 2050 deserve evaluation and cross-checking. The claim that the WS-15, from a source that is usually jaundiced against the progress of the PLA, is nearing readiness also deserves evaluation and cross-checking.

From you and latenlazy, you've been negative on the possible progress of the WS-15, when there's actually been an absence of news and insiders have been cautiously optimistic. That's not the same as being able to cross-check Minnie Chan's WS-15 claims as uncredible.

Actually, I would say that for PLA watching, it is standard to value the credibility of online leakers and insiders more than traditional news media.

FYI, I think the issue is that you're trying to take leakers at face value; when I've explained before that leakers face a specific predicament that requires that we subject their claims to the same scrutiny as other sources. As far as distrusting traditional news media goes; I would say that you should distrust everyone to begin with, but give more credence to Chinese news media than Western news media because Chinese news media often falls into your category of insiders, i.e, they have access to inside information. For that matter, Minnie, writing for the SCMP, is somewhere in between, because she's writing for the SCMP, which is traditionally Western-slanted, but Alibaba-owned.

Ultimately, of course, it's a matter of wait-and-see; if we see WS-15 flying during Zhuhai or 1/11, or insiders / official Chinese media exclaiming that the J-20 is running WS-15 (as you and latenlazy have been pains to refute), your hypothesis will have been refuted. If not, this is just another flash in the pan.

 

[Blitzo]

Except you're throwing the baby out with the bathwater here. Effectively, your entire attitude is that if Minnie Chan, for whatever reason, decides to cite you on a subject, via Step 1, you are now no longer a useful source.

As I've explained before, Minnie Chan has her systemic biases; she can't properly evaluate the accuracy of her Western sources, and she has a relatively weak technical background. But her Chinese sources deserve evaluation; i.e, Minnie Chan's article shouldn't be treated as a gestalt (the article is credible or uncredible) but rather we pick it apart for claims and sources for those claims.

Err no, I said "consider the author and their track record for their past predictions, including their selection of sources (and the track record of said sources)"
In other words, if XYZ chose to cite someone we consider to be credible, then that bolsters their credibility a little bit. If they cite someone not credible, then that reduces their credibility a little bit. If they have a background of citing mostly people who are not credible, then that means their overall credibilitly up to this point is greatly reduced.

I would say that Minnie Chan's claims that she's gotten Chinese think-tankers to say that the Chinese are targeting 200 J-20s by 2050 deserve evaluation and cross-checking. The claim that the WS-15, from a source that is usually jaundiced against the progress of the PLA, is nearing readiness also deserves evaluation and cross-checking.

From you and latenlazy, you've been negative on the possible progress of the WS-15, when there's actually been an absence of news and insiders have been cautiously optimistic. That's not the same as being able to cross-check Minnie Chan's WS-15 claims as uncredible.

In the case of this specific article's claims about WS-15, it claims that "The WS-15 is expected to be ready for widespread installation in the J-20s by the end of this year" -- that is far beyond the cautious optimism of insiders that we've had over the years.

Considering that claim to be unlikely is not "negative" but realistic. If WS-15 was expected to be ready for widespread J-20 installation by the end of this year then we would not merely be hearing cautious optimism but something more akin to imminent hype.

FYI, I think the issue is that you're trying to take leakers at face value; when I've explained before that leakers face a specific predicament that requires that we subject their claims to the same scrutiny as other sources. As far as distrusting traditional news media goes; I would say that you should distrust everyone to begin with, but give more credence to Chinese news media than Western news media because Chinese news media often falls into your category of insiders, i.e, they have access to inside information. For that matter, Minnie, writing for the SCMP, is somewhere in between, because she's writing for the SCMP, which is traditionally Western-slanted, but Alibaba-owned.

This does not contradict anything that I wrote in my last post.
My overall point was to refute your suggestion that it was somehow illogical for us to consider online insider sources as more worthwhile than traditional news media for PLA watching purposes.

Ultimately, of course, it's a matter of wait-and-see; if we see WS-15 flying during Zhuhai or 1/11, or insiders / official Chinese media exclaiming that the J-20 is running WS-15 (as you and latenlazy have been pains to refute), your hypothesis will have been refuted. If not, this is just another flash in the pan.

Believe me I would be very pleasantly surprised if we had some kind of indication that J-20s had widespread installation of WS-15.

However, at this stage I don't think there is anything credible to suggest that would be the case.


Who knows, we might if we are lucky get some information or even a model of WS-15 at Zhuhai. Or we might see a J-20 start fly testing a WS-15 by sometime. But "widespread installation"?? That's a bit too far.

 

[Inst]

Err no, I said "consider the author and their track record for their past predictions, including their selection of sources (and the track record of said sources)"
In other words, if XYZ chose to cite someone we consider to be credible, then that bolsters their credibility a little bit. If they cite someone not credible, then that reduces their credibility a little bit. If they have a background of citing mostly people who are not credible, then that means their overall credibilitly up to this point is greatly reduced.

I think the important thing to consider is that news media of any kind is usually a secondary source, not a primary source. The criteria for evaluating primary sources (leakers, insiders) is different from the criteria for evaluating secondary sources (news media, analysts).

Anyways, I'll give a longer riposte later. I'll also mention that I am not treating Minnie Chan's claim as "credible" in the sense of a binary, but I am treating it as "bears investigation" and "one data point". So please don't straw man.

 

[Dfangsaur]

Err no, I said "consider the author and their track record for their past predictions, including their selection of sources (and the track record of said sources)"
In other words, if XYZ chose to cite someone we consider to be credible, then that bolsters their credibility a little bit. If they cite someone not credible, then that reduces their credibility a little bit. If they have a background of citing mostly people who are not credible, then that means their overall credibilitly up to this point is greatly reduced.




In the case of this specific article's claims about WS-15, it claims that "The WS-15 is expected to be ready for widespread installation in the J-20s by the end of this year" -- that is far beyond the cautious optimism of insiders that we've had over the years.

Considering that claim to be unlikely is not "negative" but realistic. If WS-15 was expected to be ready for widespread J-20 installation by the end of this year then we would not merely be hearing cautious optimism but something more akin to imminent hype.





This does not contradict anything that I wrote in my last post.
My overall point was to refute your suggestion that it was somehow illogical for us to consider online insider sources as more worthwhile than traditional news media for PLA watching purposes.





Believe me I would be very pleasantly surprised if we had some kind of indication that J-20s had widespread installation of WS-15.

However, at this stage I don't think there is anything credible to suggest that would be the case.


Who knows, we might if we are lucky get some information or even a model of WS-15 at Zhuhai. Or we might see a J-20 start fly testing a WS-15 by sometime. But "widespread installation"?? That's a bit too far.

I agree. Minnie Chan's sources has always been dubiously anonymous, and I always take her claims with a grain of salt.

 

[Hyperwarp]

Booooooooringg!!!!!!! Give us some pictures!!!

 

[drunkmunky]

I think that's a bit rushed but that's just my opinion. I'd rather they safely deploy the engine in new blocks and see how it goes.

 

[Inst]

IMO, the WS-15 can't be ready for the J-20, although there's a slight chance of mass deployment. If the WS-15 is installed, it's going to be for testing and trial purposes only, and even if it's mass deployed, i.e, superseding the WS-10B, it's likely going to be with non-TVC nozzles for two reasons. First, TVC will need extensive testing to ensure its reliability and integration with the FCS. Second, TVC is always going to be more maintenance intensive than non-TVC; the J-20 will need to be deployed in both TVC and non-TVC variants until the PLA is satisfied with the reliability of TVC, and even then, there will likely be non-TVC variants / configurations of the J-20 for peacetime and patrol use.

 

[ougoah]

Glaring errors in the byline says it all. F35 cannot supercruise, also, even without supercruise, the J20 could still fly undetected at supersonic speeds.

Supercruise is much more about range and fuel economy than stealth. Yes, it will also help with IR stealth, but a good stealth fighter buyer pilot wouldn’t allow an enemy to get within IRST range of itself with or without afterburners to start with.

F-35 can supercruise though. Where are people getting information about F-35 not being able to supercruise?

 

[plawolf]

F-35 can supercruise though. Where are people getting information about F-35 not being able to supercruise?

It has been a long running criticism that the F35 cannot supercruise. Was this a new development? I must admit I have not been keeping much of a close eye on the F35.

 

[styx]

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!