J-15 Carrier Multirole Fighter thread


Deino

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
Nah, just circulating stories of a few hull loss due to accidents, i was thinking the missing numbers could be hull loss.


Oh ... no, some of those are quite well known. From what we know the these are the known mishaps, but maybe @huitong knows more:

no. 117 was allegedly lost during landing on land on 27 April 2016, due to the horizontal stabilizer malfunction, no. 104 was heavily damaged – and as such maybe written off – after a fire and emergency landing on 17 August 2017 after a bird strike and there are reports about two more (numbers 107 & 110) being lost too, but these were not confirmed.
 

LCR34

Junior Member
Registered Member
As far as I remember the major accidents are already a couple years back when no Batch 3 and 4 existed yet. As such lost airframes would be noticable by having gaps in serials from 1 to 24 but I give it a decent chance that lost airframes have already been replaced.
Oh my bad it was the first batch.
 

Dante80

Junior Member
Registered Member
I'm not sure if the article has been posted, but the information it is talking about is something that we are aware of and which has been discussed.

The article itself doesn't offer any new or useful information.

Sure, but such articles should always be posted in threads like this one for obvious reasons (verification checks and summary reporting). They are on-topic and very useful for inclusive purposes too (for example ~ members that don't have the luxury/time of reading/following hundreds of pages to hunt snippets of information about the subject at hand).

Which is a reason I do enjoy getting your articles linked in these forums Bltizo too! (regardless of the fact that we tend to have already discussed their contents in these pages beforehand) :)
 

Bltizo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
Sure, but such articles should always be posted in threads like this one for obvious reasons (verification checks and summary reporting). They are on-topic and very useful for inclusive purposes too (for example ~ members that don't have the luxury/time of reading/following hundreds of pages to hunt snippets of information about the subject at hand).

Which is a reason I do enjoy getting your articles linked in these forums Bltizo too! (regardless of the fact that we tend to have already discussed their contents in these pages beforehand) :)

Such articles can be posted, but if they are associated with unclear questions and/or if it conveys an impression that information within a given article is fresh/new when it in fact isn't, I believe it is important that they are corrected.
It is important to all members -- whether they have the time to trawl through pages of posts or not -- that they know when information is and isn't new, and whether information is or isn't new to an article.


I do not post my articles here myself for a reason, because I don't want to flatter myself to believe that my articles contain information that people here who do their due diligence here already know.
 

Volpler11

Junior Member
Registered Member
Oh ... no, some of those are quite well known. From what we know the these are the known mishaps, but maybe @huitong knows more:

no. 117 was allegedly lost during landing on land on 27 April 2016, due to the horizontal stabilizer malfunction, no. 104 was heavily damaged – and as such maybe written off – after a fire and emergency landing on 17 August 2017 after a bird strike and there are reports about two more (numbers 107 & 110) being lost too, but these were not confirmed.
104 is either repaired or replaced. Would be a good idea to try to find out the batch number of 04 to confirm. Also 107 have at least been renumbered to 07.

j15 104.jpgj15 04.JPG
 

Top