ROCAF record

Should be 148 F-16s, 58 Mirage 2000s and 129 IDFs. I may not be up to date with all the attrition though. I have a suspicion that both the ROC and the PRC would fake the attrition of one or two aircraft per each type (F-16, M2000, Su-27SK, UBK, MKK, MK2) so the actual aircraft is brought into a secret hanger, disassembled and harvested for technological information.

Taiwan's F-16 Block 20s belong to the lighter F-16A type, and is based on the Block 15. While the F-16Cs with the GE engines have superior thrust, the F-16A has a much lighter airframe and lower wing loading, making them easier and more nimble to fly. The MLU electronics is better than most standard F-16C except for the Block 52 plus or if the said F-16C got updated. Block C AMRAAMs are the latest batch and the best version of AMRAAM yet. However, the ROC only has 120 of them, since each is very costly. Beyond that, the F-16s had to rely on Sparrows.

The ROCAF appears however, to have a few hundred, at least 400, MICAs in comparison, and probably even more TC-2s.

Let's unfactor the ROCAF bases getting SSMed into cratersville, and lets assume this will be purely an air to air match.

The initial phases of this massive jet fighter battle is going to consume vast stocks of BVR missiles. All the maneuverability factors in all these planes are not going to play in what is going to be an intense missile slinging match. With that many missiles on the air, I don't think anyone would hang around for a dogfight. It's going to be a shoot and scoot battle. Who is going to win? That's going to depend on logistics, who got more stocks of BVR AAMs. Once the PL-12s, R-77s, AIM-120s, MICAs and TC-2s ran out, people will start slinging their SARH missile inventories like Sparrows and R-27s. Once that is done, you are left with IR AAMs, and everything else will be close range combat.

As the battle grinds further, contact will be short ranges. At this point, I would agree that the PLAAF would have the advantage, despite the maneuverability of the Mirages, F-16s and IDFs and the training of the ROCAF pilots. While I do feel myself that the Flankers and J-10s have the edge in maneuverbility, it really depends a lot on the pilot, situation and lock to fulfill the plane's potential. In most dogfights, it's usually a 50-50 result, just because a plane is more agile does not guarantee its victory, since there are so many cases in the past where more agile planes have lost over less manuevrable ones.

The critical edge of the PLAAF lies in helmet sights and missiles with wide off bore capabiltiy. I do think the R-73 and PL-8C (latest PL-8 block) is superior to the AIM-9L, TC-1 and Magic 2. The vast numbers of J-7s and J-8IIs will be another weighty factor in favor of the PLAAF. The ROCAF needs the AIM-9X in order to redress the balance in close range combat.

Not factoring in the pla missiles strikes helps rocaf cause a lot. But lets try just air to air, like it is proposed. Btw, are we also not factoring in taiwanese patriot, sky bow and hawk batteries? I guess not...

Main issue is how many planes can plaaf (and plan if you will) get in the air simultaneously at one time, coordinate them and send them over taiwan. Also, how much time would it need to send the second wave, after that first wave. I would imagine plaaf has enough planes to make those waves of equal numbers. Figure of 700 is often cited as number of planes stationed within reach of taiwan. I would imagine that can, in war time, be pushed up even higher. Can plaaf coordinate 250 planes at once? How bout 350? What if it can't do more than 150? Or even less?

Sortie rate per plane per day, for that distance would probably max out at 3-3.5.

ROCAF has it easier in a way. It would always know how many planes are coming in, and its e-2c could detect plaaf planes almost as when they take off from airbases. 300-400 km away at least. That would give them enough time to scramble as many plane as they want from pretty much anywhere on taiwan and still intercept the attackers in time. Range rocaf would have to cross would be smaller, luxury of using afterburners would be much more doable for rocaf. Sortie rates per plane per day would be higher than plaaf could afford - surely over 4.

It really would come down to pilot training, luck, weapon stockpiles and, of course, equipment capability. In my opinon not factoring pla missile strikes hinders plaaf much more than not factoring in sam defences hinders the rocaf. Even though the sheer number advantage would be enough for plaaf to prevail in the end, i fear losses would be huge and would number in hundreds of lost planes over the period of several days.

If you factor SAMs on both sides, the PLAAF would lose big. There may be S-300s and HQ-9s that could strike at Taiwan airspace from middle to high altitudes (not low because of radar horizon reasons), but many of the PLAAF SAMs would be located mostly defending cities and air bases.

The PLAAF needs more fighters like JH-7A and Su-30MKK that could could strike at radar and SAM installations with ARMs. I don't know if there is enough, because the MK2s and PLANAF JH-7As will be doing antiship duty. We need to confirm if the J-8H version is capable of using ARMs, and if the J-10 and J-11B could do it too.

In theory, you can set SAMs like some versions of S-300 missile (48N6Y and later) and quite possibly HQ-9/FT-2000 to be in home on jam mode, to take out not only E-3 but also ground radars. Kind of like a surface to surface antiradiation missile.

The ROCAF also has to deal with the PLAAF's AWACS, the homegrown A-50s and the Y-8s converted to AWACS and AEW. Then there is also going to be all sorts of ground radar along the Fujian coast. Since Taiwan has been denied in purchasing the AGM-88 (status still being lobbied), the ROCAF's only sole ARM is the TC-2A which appears to be just recently passed some tests or recently inducted. This project had its troubles, and without this missile, the ROCAF would have no ability at all to shut down PLA ground radars, which can spot ROCAF aircraft and direct PLAAF aircraft with virtual impunity.

The thing is, this means only the IDF has SEAD capability among the aircraft in the ROCAF, and it is limited by its own short range. The IDF fighters have to do its share of SAM suppression and antiship roles, and that leaves less fighters for the air to air role.

The ROCAF can still intercept MKKs trying to use Kh-59ME against ROCAF bases. The Kh-59ME is limited to 115km range, and the MKKs would need to fly over the water to launch their missiles. That also puts them in risk against Taiwan's own powerful SAMs, the Tien Kung-2 or TK-2. To give you what this SAM system is capable of, think of it like a land based AEGIS system, and I mean literally because Raytheon is said to have collaborated on the project and used AEGIS related technologies. You can see why I mention the importance of SEAD roles here.

The new H-6H however, could fire its near 300km YJ-62 while still within mainland territory. To intercept these bombers before they reach launch point, the ROCAF has to fly offensively over the PRC, and in doing so, makes them vulnerable to PLA SAMs and attacks from shorter ranged fighters like J-7s.

If you are talking about SAMs further, destroyers like the 052C, 051C and the Kidds could be a factor. The Kidds are armed with block 3 SM-2s, so they act like mobile SAM platforms. But then the 052C and 051C ships could blanket Taiwan airspace with their SAMs.

crobato said:

Should be 148 F-16s, 58 Mirage 2000s and 129 IDFs. I may not be up to date with all the attrition though. I have a suspicion that both the ROC and the PRC would fake the attrition of one or two aircraft per each type (F-16, M2000, Su-27SK, UBK, MKK, MK2) so the actual aircraft is brought into a secret hanger, disassembled and harvested for technological information.

Taiwan's F-16 Block 20s belong to the lighter F-16A type, and is based on the Block 15. While the F-16Cs with the GE engines have superior thrust, the F-16A has a much lighter airframe and lower wing loading, making them easier and more nimble to fly. The MLU electronics is better than most standard F-16C except for the Block 52 plus or if the said F-16C got updated. Block C AMRAAMs are the latest batch and the best version of AMRAAM yet. However, the ROC only has 120 of them, since each is very costly. Beyond that, the F-16s had to rely on Sparrows.

The ROCAF appears however, to have a few hundred, at least 400, MICAs in comparison, and probably even more TC-2s.

Let's unfactor the ROCAF bases getting SSMed into cratersville, and lets assume this will be purely an air to air match.

The initial phases of this massive jet fighter battle is going to consume vast stocks of BVR missiles. All the maneuverability factors in all these planes are not going to play in what is going to be an intense missile slinging match. With that many missiles on the air, I don't think anyone would hang around for a dogfight. It's going to be a shoot and scoot battle. Who is going to win? That's going to depend on logistics, who got more stocks of BVR AAMs. Once the PL-12s, R-77s, AIM-120s, MICAs and TC-2s ran out, people will start slinging their SARH missile inventories like Sparrows and R-27s. Once that is done, you are left with IR AAMs, and everything else will be close range combat.

As the battle grinds further, contact will be short ranges. At this point, I would agree that the PLAAF would have the advantage, despite the maneuverability of the Mirages, F-16s and IDFs and the training of the ROCAF pilots. While I do feel myself that the Flankers and J-10s have the edge in maneuverbility, it really depends a lot on the pilot, situation and lock to fulfill the plane's potential. In most dogfights, it's usually a 50-50 result, just because a plane is more agile does not guarantee its victory, since there are so many cases in the past where more agile planes have lost over less manuevrable ones.

The critical edge of the PLAAF lies in helmet sights and missiles with wide off bore capabiltiy. I do think the R-73 and PL-8C (latest PL-8 block) is superior to the AIM-9L, TC-1 and Magic 2. The vast numbers of J-7s and J-8IIs will be another weighty factor in favor of the PLAAF. The ROCAF needs the AIM-9X in order to redress the balance in close range combat.

Click to expand...

1) You can get information on the type and number of aircraft, attritions, at this site:


But I think for purpose of this discussion, being off by a couple of planes is irrevelent.

2) From
The 150 F-16A/B Block 15OCU's for Taiwan are built to MLU standards and are designated Block 20. The Block 20 designation was reserved in the 1980's. It was later assigned to the Taiwanese aircraft and to the MLU program initiated to bring the European F-16s to an enhanced level, comparable with the Block 50 F-16s of the USAF.

Generally speaking, the difference between Block 50 and earlier variants is the ability to fire AGM-84 Harpoons:

The Block 50's have the capability to fire the AIM-120 Amraam, the new AGM-65G Maverick missile and the PGU-28/B 20mm cannon round. The Block 50/52 is capable of carrying the new JDAM munition, the AGM-154A/B JSOW and is the first F-16 version to integrate the AGM-84 Harpoon antishipping missile.

And here we have an article on ROCAF F-16 firing Harpoons:

August 19, 2004 (by Lieven Dewitte) - Taiwan's air force has confirmed it carried out its first test firing of American-made Harpoon anti-ship missiles in a display of the island's ability to ward off a Chinese invasion.

3) The original F-16 package included 900 AIM-9 and 600 AIM-7's. Since then there has been several additional deliveries of missiles. If you look up US arms sales to Taiwan you can prolly add them up to get a fair estimate.

As for the Mirage 2000-5 purchase:

ROCAF also obtained 960 MICA medium-range and 480 Magic II short-range air-to-air missiles from Matra. The former provides the Mirage with the BVR capability needed for its role as front-line interceptor. A number of centerline twin gun pods with DEFA 554 cannons were also acquired and fitted on the two-seaters, as they do not have an internal gun armament. Other support equipment, such as auxiliary fuel tanks, helmets, and G-suits, have also been procured.

There is no report of ROCAF TC-2 inventory that I'm aware of. =/ Most comparison match the TC-2 to "Sparrow class" and not AIM-120 class. Since it has never been tested in combat, we can only speculate on its effectiveness.

4) ROCAF's sidewinder inventory includes AIM-9P-4 and AIM-9M-2. I'll let someone else do the comparison to PL-8. But we could note here that the ROCAF aircraft do not have HMS.

5) In short-range combat, assuming pilots of equal quality, whoever that's in F-16/Mirage-2000/IDF is at a definate advantage over J-7/J-8. The generation gap here is just too big. Even the IDF is built to take up to 9G turns. Plus, being on the defensive side, it doesn't need to be loaded down with extra fuel tanks, unlike PLAAF aircraft that needs a lot of fuel to sustain combat over Taiwan AND go home.

Also, I'm not sure why everyone thinks it's going to be huge mass of several hundred aircraft coming from both sides. I'm picturing 2-20 vs 2-20 in aerial engagements.

crobato said:

If you factor SAMs on both sides, the PLAAF would lose big. There may be S-300s and HQ-9s that could strike at Taiwan airspace from middle to high altitudes (not low because of radar horizon reasons), but many of the PLAAF SAMs would be located mostly defending cities and air bases.

The PLAAF needs more fighters like JH-7A and Su-30MKK that could could strike at radar and SAM installations with ARMs. I don't know if there is enough, because the MK2s and PLANAF JH-7As will be doing antiship duty. We need to confirm if the J-8H version is capable of using ARMs, and if the J-10 and J-11B could do it too.

In theory, you can set SAMs like some versions of S-300 missile (48N6Y and later) and quite possibly HQ-9/FT-2000 to be in home on jam mode, to take out not only E-3 but also ground radars. Kind of like a surface to surface antiradiation missile.

The ROCAF also has to deal with the PLAAF's AWACS, the homegrown A-50s and the Y-8s converted to AWACS and AEW. Then there is also going to be all sorts of ground radar along the Fujian coast. Since Taiwan has been denied in purchasing the AGM-88 (status still being lobbied), the ROCAF's only sole ARM is the TC-2A which appears to be just recently passed some tests or recently inducted. This project had its troubles, and without this missile, the ROCAF would have no ability at all to shut down PLA ground radars, which can spot ROCAF aircraft and direct PLAAF aircraft with virtual impunity.

The thing is, this means only the IDF has SEAD capability among the aircraft in the ROCAF, and it is limited by its own short range. The IDF fighters have to do its share of SAM suppression and antiship roles, and that leaves less fighters for the air to air role.

The ROCAF can still intercept MKKs trying to use Kh-59ME against ROCAF bases. The Kh-59ME is limited to 115km range, and the MKKs would need to fly over the water to launch their missiles. That also puts them in risk against Taiwan's own powerful SAMs, the Tien Kung-2 or TK-2. To give you what this SAM system is capable of, think of it like a land based AEGIS system, and I mean literally because Raytheon is said to have collaborated on the project and used AEGIS related technologies. You can see why I mention the importance of SEAD roles here.

The new H-6H however, could fire its near 300km YJ-62 while still within mainland territory. To intercept these bombers before they reach launch point, the ROCAF has to fly offensively over the PRC, and in doing so, makes them vulnerable to PLA SAMs and attacks from shorter ranged fighters like J-7s.

If you are talking about SAMs further, destroyers like the 052C, 051C and the Kidds could be a factor. The Kidds are armed with block 3 SM-2s, so they act like mobile SAM platforms. But then the 052C and 051C ships could blanket Taiwan airspace with their SAMs.

Click to expand...

Very very interesting. The Chinese SAMs are likely used to defend against Taiwanese cruise missile strikes against economic centers and such. Even though it probably has a numbers advantage overall, it really can't make use of them. Also, it's much harder to go into an area that is defended by SAMs, ground detectors and such. But then again, if you bring in SAM of the Taiwanese, you also need to bring in the initial BM and CM attack on these things.

As for ARM, I'm sure J-10B will be used in that role in the near future. It will be interesting to see what kind of radar J-10B uses. Also, once J-10's radar gets upgraded to AESA, I'd expect it to have much better multirole capability (obviously) and be able to do more attack missions.

The problem is a matter of numbers. The ROCAF has F-16s, but only 150 and only 120 good BVRAAMs for them all. This means that they can run out very quickly. The Mirages have far more BVRAAMS but there are fewer of the aircraft. The IDF has good numbers on both sides, but is less capable. I think it is possible for a J-7G or J-8F to be able to take out an IDF fighter.

Whenever the F-16s run out of Slammers they'll have to use Sparrows. There are several problems here. One problem is that the Chinese have reverse-engineered Sparrows and implemented that technology and knowledge. In other words, they'll probably know it's weaknesses and have developed counters for it. The other problem is that this is an AAM that requires the plane to guide the missile the whole way almost and that puts the plane at a disadvantage. This means just about any fighter could run up and shoot it down in that time.

The problem with the Mirages is that there are only around 50 of them. It's possible they'd get taken out real fast in the air strikes and initial air-to-air battles, unless Taiwan chooses to keep them reserved. As far as the SAMs go most are very vulnerable to attack from cruise missiles. Only the Hawk and PAC-3 are capable of intercepting them as I recall. Those would be vulnerable to the YJ-91 or KH-31 and PGBs.

In radar Taiwan has good coverage, but this can be degraded quickly with LACMs, ARMs, and PGBs. Taiwan can't intercept a bomb so they can't do much if China uses precision ones.

With ships it gets even more complicated. A lot of ships would be subject to attack from ground, air, and sea. Taiwan has hardly any subs and they aren't sufficient defense. This means only aircraft, ships, and ground-based systems can be used by the Taiwanese. On the other hand, China will also have the use of many subs. The 052Cs will give very good coverage for the area and make ASW hard for Taiwan. With the other destroyers involved it's even more difficult.

The reality is this will be harder for Taiwan than China. China has more resources at its disposal and several distinct advantages. Plus, if China's able to take the smaller islands in the Straits held by Taiwan, China will have very sufficient standing for attack on Taiwan itself.

We need to settle on some rules here. We said we wouldn't factor in anything but air-to-air, to simplify things. Yes, its far from realistic but when has realism ever been the point in forum discussions?

Taiwan does seem to hav mirages well stocked up on weapons. They would probably shoot off their micas like crazy. And mica is second best taiwan has, after those puny 120 amraams.(though i simply do not believe that the war couldn't be seen at least weeeks in advance and that taiwain would not somehow-anyhow get their hands on couple of hundred of more amraams expressly)

Still, a good portion of fired aams on both sides will be sarh aams, make no mistake about it, as mr. bush would say. Inventory of arhs compared to number of planes each side has is just not enough (save for taiwanese mirages and micas) PLAAF alone has over 2000 r-27s of various variants. I imagine it'd be something like this: at some 50 km some r-27 would be fired off, to little chance of hitting anything, at some 40 km or so micas, amraams and r-77 would be fired off to a fair chance of hitting something, at some 20-30 km away all othr sarhs would be fired off to a so-so chance of hitting something, then under 20 km its anyone's game with IR missiles, but it will help packing r-73 with hms to those who have 'em. Lets not forget mica has dual seeker, and in IR mode its min range is just 500 m. Also, IR vrsions of r-27 could turn out to be quite a surprise for rocaf, with its high speed and long range.

Are plaaf's pl-8 integrated with some kind of hms? If yes, is the most common variant of pl-8 an high off bore missile?

As for dogfights, assuming pilots being equal - i still wouldn't feel safe in a f-16 or idf versus a j7. Sure, i may win bit more often, but i'd be far from safe. If there's two j7s on one f16 in a dogfight, it might end quite deadly for the taiwanese. Even one-on-one i would think every third or fourth matchup might end bad for rocaf. And one more thing, mirage 2000 is not a good dogfighter. It was designed on the 70s priniciple of interceptors, not unlike tornado f series. All other things being equal and no hms, i'd prefer actually to be in a j7 than a mirage in very close range dogfight.

Concerning huge amount of planes at one time...well, thing is that previously in modern history we never really had such concentrations of planes battling for such small airspace. Never before was first strike so important. I battle of britain on the other hand we did witness over a hundred planes in the air, at one time, with dozens of fighters on each side battling it out. So, while i'm not saying that 200 plaaf planes will attack one airfield and 200 rocaf planes will defend it, all over relatively small area, i do believe simultaneous but separate encounters will be a regular thing in opening day/days, with over a dozen aircaft on each side duking it out, per that one encounter so total number of opposing planes in the air might very well go over a hundred at one time.

Actually, I believe China ordered about 1000 Adders.

As for the PL-8, I think they do have one that uses HMS. That means China has three types of SRAAMs.

Even one-on-one i would think every third or fourth matchup might end bad for rocaf. And one more thing, mirage 2000 is not a good dogfighter.

Click to expand...

I think the J-7s are quite manueverable. Though, right now there's no reports I've seen of the PLAAF's J-7s being equipped with HMS. So, it would be a matter of pilots, I think. The J-7Es are pretty close to F-16s.

yeah, you are right, China does have over 1000 R-77 according to Kanwa. Also, it probably has a few hundred PL-12 by now and the number is increasing fairly fast. Also remember that only the flankers will use AA-10 to AA-12. The J-7, J-8 and J-10 will all be using PL-8, PL-11 and PL-12. We can assume that China will have a non-ending supply of ARH AAMs in a confrontation with Taiwan. Whereas ROCAF F-16s would have to use SARH after a couple of days.

Also about PL-8, you can assume that it has all the good traits of R-73 and also has better ECM and slightly better accuracy, but less range. In general, the developer of PL-9C (which is not as good as PL-8's latest block) said that it has better performance than R-73 due to the more advanced electronics and processing used.

Also, J-7 are quite good dogfighters. I remember reading about J-7 beating su-27 in dogfights. Also, J-7G does have HMS
I thought J-7E also did, but maybe I'm wrong here.

Okay, i am confused now. First i say i read china has some 2000 r-27 to which vlad replies that china has 1000 adders which are r-73, and to which tphuang says 'youre right. china does have more than 1000 r-77'. So each of us is mentioning a different aam here! Ok, once for all, to the best of our (combined) knowledge:
china has how meny of each of following types of aam?
r-27 (if possible also break down to IR and extended range versions)
r-73
r-77
pl-12
pl-11
pl-8

I do think, however, it's silly to assume a non ending supply. Aams will be used up much faster than any production line could replace them. Also purchasing foreign made aams is not a quick process, at least not in quantities over several hundred. Therefore it is of paramount imporance to have enough aams to begin with, and to plan the war as if no more could be attained in the first month of the war.