I wonder how and what do the Taiwanese know about J-10 performance?
They probably know better, but they have to feed the media some crap to make the people feel good and assured.
Usually when people go the length to downplay something, its usually a sign they are deeply concerned internally.
I just find the article weird sometimes, or a bit delusional. Israel provided technological knowhow but they don't manufacture parts for the J-10. Everything for the J-10 is manufactured in China regardless of the inspired design origins of the systems. It's all absorbed, digested and remade technology. But the bottom line remains that except for the engine, every bolt, nut, wire and whatever from the plane is from China. I certainly do not think that there are US made major parts in the J-10.
The ROCAF has more of a logistical problem than the PLAAF.
The PLAAF only either has to source from China, and the imported stuff from Russia. So you only have two national vendors.
But the ROCAF has to source three ways, from the US for the F-16s, France for the M2000, and locally for the IDF.
While the Russians have their support issues, what's certain is that they are a lot more enthusiastic to sell and supply stuff to China, than France or the US is to Taiwan. France and the US always have this spectre of Beijing filing a complaint, and there is a conflict of interest because both France and the US has a lot of other business in China that they both wish to further. Whereas the Russians don't have a conflict of interest in Taiwan, and certainly benefits from painting Taiwan as an enemy of the PRC.
You can compare the logistical structure in another way. The ROCAF has to support 4 types of engines, the PW F100 for the F-16, M88 for the M2000, TE1042 for the IDF, and whatever is for the F-5 (J85?) The PLAAF only has two, WP-13 for the J-7s and J-8IIs, AL-31F/FN for the Flankers and J-10s. If you add bombers and strikers, then the PLAAF will have to deal with two more engine types, but both of which are also locally made (WS-9 for JH-7A and WP-6 for Fantan).
Now for the pilots, when you read about PLAAF exercises, pilot blogs, interviews, stories and comments, you hardly see or hear this ground controller factor. It seems that PLAAF pilots are quite autonomous, at least they are nowadays. Maybe ROCAF wants to imagine that the PLAAF pilots are like Soviet pilots, acting like unthinking robots guided by ground controllers---never mind that the PLAAF pretty much split away from the Soviet Union's sphere of influence back in 1962. Never mind that even Mao Zedong's own writings tend to stress a lot of small unit and commander autonomy, which is a primary requirement for guerilla warfare. The Communists won't conquer the mainland if they had stuck to conventional, inflexible, highly centralized command structures as their main doctrine.
As for plane performance, I believe the J-10 has better instantaneous turn rate over the M2000 and F-16A. But all these planes are going to be very good in maneuvering now matter what, and whatever advantages one has, its like saying I got a sharper blade in my knife, or a I got a longer blade, or a more comfortable handle in my knife during a knife fight. Wont really matter at all, WVR is really about pilots once the aircraft achieved a certain maneuverbility level. Hence it really is about pilot quality.
In my observation, the PLAAF has a lot more opportunities to practice DACT in terms of location, airspace, the variety of aircraft, and certainly has a better budget position. At least for the elite units. While meticulously maintained, there are still a lot of old planes in the PLAAF, and this has resulted in an unfortunate class structure within the PLAAF between the "have-new" and the "still-old" ones.
but additional it looks like there are some more changes made to the tail like the deeper aft section – maybe here's the ECM-system located ? – and the rear part of the base !
