Taiwan Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

Max Demian said:

I consider them 80s era designs. Just like the SPY-1 radar, still being installed and countless times improved. Maybe a better comparison would be the F110 from GE. That engine while also an 80's era design has seen several updates and the F110-GE-132 has a max thrust of 145kN, so that would make this comparison pretty much square.

Click to expand...

That engine is rated at 142kN; it is the most advanced 4th gen engine in America and it was evolved from a 1980's design into a modern engine. For you to call it a 1980's engine is like saying a 1980's Camaro is the same as a 2019 Camaro because the 2019 Camaro evolved from the 80's version. M'kay? No. The AL-31FM2 provides superior thrust to all of America's modern 4th gen engines today and blows away anything 30 years old.

Max Demian said:

I mean the AESA radar in the nose.

Click to expand...

You are implying that the F-22 has a superior LPI radar than the J-20? Needs evidence very very badly.

Max Demian said:

There's no confirmation either on what that tint was all about. Prototypes prior to 2017 had transparent canopies. Curiously, only the 2017 displayed that pink tint in some of the photos. I did not see the same in the production models that followed.

Click to expand...

Ohhhhhh there's no confirmation from the PLA what tint it was so maybe it's just an anti-glare tint like on commercial jets, right? LOL And the prototypes didn't have that because who cares about pilot vision on prototypes? The reason you saw the tint on some and not other production aircraft is because the tint doesn't look the same from all angles to the sun. They're not picking which ones get it and which ones don't because they don't have enough tint material, ok? LOL For you to sit here and imply that China can't tint glass is really beyond a waste of time.

manqiangrexue said:

Show calculations for 12,000 feet. The radar is mobile; they can be quickly mounted and moved anywhere often under the cover of things like tarps/night/etc...

Click to expand...

Really? I have to prove the earth is curved?

The figure I used was from a news article.
Yes they can be move around but again Sea level line of sight for the radar vs curvature of the earth.

Jura said:

huh?
Today at 7:21 AM
I quoted this post of yours:

containing no mention of "F-16"

Click to expand...

I suggest you take a bit more effort in outlining your question. I am incapable of understanding between huh? and a truncated sentence,

manqiangrexue said:

No, the conversation is not only about whether the F-16V with AIM-120D is an upgrade for the ROCAF. It is, easy part over. There were 2 other points: 1 is that whether or not they would provide an advantage over PLAAF fighters with PL-15 and the answer is that that is unlikely.
.

Click to expand...

Unlikely because you say so? Are you trying some kind of Jedi mind trick,

manqiangrexue said:

The other point is how would these jets be used by the ROCAF and the biggest assumption for them being useful at all is that they can become airborne (at least in meaningful numbers), which is unlikely to happen and the points outlined here all add on to why it's highly unlikely they will even have the chance to make any difference because it's highly unlikely that they can even get into the air.

Click to expand...

I have not seen any simulation. If you have you need to provide them to support your assertions.. .

TerraN_EmpirE said:

Really? I have to prove the earth is curved?

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

Why did you waste everybody's time with this? It's apparent from the latter portion of this post that you knew exactly what I was looking for.

TerraN_EmpirE said:

The figure I used was from a news article.
Yes they can be move around but again Sea level line of sight for the radar vs curvature of the earth.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

Oh I see you read this article written by someone who was hired by Tsai IngWen LOL. First of this person is talking about SAM's getting friendly/enemy aircraft mixed up; does he know how many jets these SAMs can keep track of? His whole premise is based on that once they're out of site, they're just little dots scrambling around and no one has kept track of anything.

The 12,000 feet minimum for a 250km target was gotten off of a book, which I cannot access and the conditions are unknown. I cannot imagine why that number would be as high as 12,000 since the earth drops by 8 inches per mile on average and that puts the drop at 167 feet over 200km or 125 miles. But let's say they know more than I do. 12,000 feet is quite a low ceiling to abide by when PLAAF jets can come in at over 50,000 feet and shoot down at them. If the radar does not cover the entirety of Taiwan island, that's ok because it's already a huge advantage to shut down the other parts of the island. Taiwan started off as a very small island; not its west side is shut down and PLAAF jets can freely fly over it but ROCAF can't. You think that's still pretty cool as long as they have a little space in the east? LOL Once the west coast is secured, Chinese jets push eastward at high altitude shooting down low-altitude targets with the invasion force behind them. When they get a couple of SAMs transported on the west bank, it's over; all of ROC is heavily under PRC SAM coverage.

And does China have the 400km Novator? I don't know but if they needed it for the ROC and told Russia they need them, Russia would sell it right away, especially with the US acting like it currently is.

Why Because someone wanted me to post the calculation for the curvature of the earth.

Of course At ranges of over 200km the radar system lacks IFF so anything their is a potential red on red.
And 250km is only an average for about dead center of the island from the beach of the mainland. So some parts will have 12000 feet some far more. Depending on radar and location on the island and oh yeah the mountains and buildings they will be smacking into also create clutter blocking radar.

Brumby said:

Unlikely because you say so? Are you trying some kind of Jedi mind trick,

Click to expand...

Easy there, not everybody smarter than you is a Jedi LOL. Unlikely because you've failed to bring any reason at all that the F-16V would be ahead of China's 4.5 gens and it is generally believed, both here and by the US intelligence community, that America requires a design superior to an AIM-120 to compete with the PL-15. It's all been outlined for you.

Brumby said:

I have not seen any simulation. If you have you need to provide them to support your assertions.. .

Click to expand...

You've not seen any simulation of a missile blowing up a runway? LOL You need a visual representation to help you understand that a massively numerically superior missile force would overcome a small amount of interceptors and hit their ground targets? OK, here's one by RAND:

Key parts:
"China's fighter aircraft capabilities have surpassed those of Taiwan in the air. Furthermore, China now has the capability to destroy all of Taiwan's aircraft at their bases."

Here's another one, but involving the US.


One more:

Key points:
"China's procurement and development of fighter aircraft, surface-to-surface ballistic missiles, land-attack cruise missiles and bomber aircraft advancements are not slowing, and could pulverize Taiwan's air bases within hours of a war, the report says. None of Taiwan's fighter aircraft would survive or be deployable on runways turned into a lunar landscape.

The report points to the current J-11B upgrade (J-16), armed with improved PL-15 air-to-air missiles and active electronically scanned array radar, as the one fighter aircraft that will turn the tide against Taiwan, but there are other weapons, mentioned in passing in the report, but none-the-less significant."

See? I'm nice. When I have a point, or an example, I just give them to you for your education. I didn't ask you for promises just to show you a link

TerraN_EmpirE said:

Why Because someone wanted me to post the calculation for the curvature of the earth.

Click to expand...

I asked you to show calculations for how you assess 12,000 feet minimum and how 200km are enough and you'e not done that. But since you provided a source, I won't ask you to show calculations for what you clearly did not calculate. Your post on the curvature of the earth was not helpful in any way; that number, if true, must have been specially adapted to terrain rather than made by calculating average earth curvature.

TerraN_EmpirE said:

Of course At ranges of over 200km the radar system lacks IFF so anything their is a potential red on red.
And 250km is only an average for about dead center of the island from the beach of the mainland. So some parts will have 12000 feet some far more. Depending on radar and location on the island and oh yeah the mountains and buildings they will be smacking into also create clutter blocking radar.

Click to expand...

Well, HQ-9 doesn't engage or see beyond 200km (unless we're talking about S400) so there is no red-on-red. If you mean S400, I need a source that says it doesn't have IFF beyond 200km because logic says that if the radar can track up to 80 targets in a 400km range, it can remember which are friendly. That is the definition of tracking.

So like I said, your aircraft will be in danger of smacking into mountains and buildings if they want to use those to confuse radar. And that's if their airbase interceptors weren't overwhelmed and were able to protect a runway for the F-16s to even take off on. Runways don't move, so there's no running; you've got to intercept every missile targeting it. Numerically and statistically speaking, this would be an odd one-off situation that would only lead to a heavily disadvantaged F-16 flying into a flock of PLAAF birds while trying to suppress altitude to avoid PLA SAMs.

And like I said in the last post, it's not magic that every system everywhere every time in the ROC will be covered by PLA SAMs or completely destroyed by missiles. SAMs and missiles just heavily extend the advantage of the PLAAF over the ROCAF.

Are you playing Devil's Advocate or do you think that the ROC actually has the military capability to defend itself from the PRC? I can't help but feel it's the former because the latter is just not plausible.

manqiangrexue said:

Easy there, not everybody smarter than you is a Jedi LOL. Unlikely because you've failed to bring any reason at all that the F-16V would be ahead of China's 4.5 gens and it is generally believed, both here and by the US intelligence community, that America requires a design superior to an AIM-120 to compete with the PL-15. It's all been outlined for you.

Click to expand...

I have already outlined the reasons in post #3010. .

manqiangrexue said:

You've not seen any simulation of a missile blowing up a runway? LOL You need a visual representation to help you understand that a massively numerically superior missile force would overcome a small amount of interceptors and hit their ground targets? OK, here's one by RAND:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Key parts:
"China's fighter aircraft capabilities have surpassed those of Taiwan in the air. Furthermore, China now has the capability to destroy all of Taiwan's aircraft at their bases."

Here's another one, but involving the US.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

One more:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Key points:
"China's procurement and development of fighter aircraft, surface-to-surface ballistic missiles, land-attack cruise missiles and bomber aircraft advancements are not slowing, and could pulverize Taiwan's air bases within hours of a war, the report says. None of Taiwan's fighter aircraft would survive or be deployable on runways turned into a lunar landscape.

The report points to the current J-11B upgrade (J-16), armed with improved PL-15 air-to-air missiles and active electronically scanned array radar, as the one fighter aircraft that will turn the tide against Taiwan, but there are other weapons, mentioned in passing in the report, but none-the-less significant."

Click to expand...

If you chose to use that RAND report you should also note that report stated (page xviii) that under a sustained attack, Taiwan can operate its planes for a period of between 2 to 4 weeks. This is far different to your argument that it cannot get its planes off the ground.

@manqiangrexue @Brumby Please calm down. Some of your arguments are veering into personal attack territory.