Taiwan Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

manqiangrexue

Brigadier
But don't only AESA radars have T/R modules? Maybe for a mechanical radar it is much more difficult to scale down in size without total re-engineering.
You are right. I was thinking modern radar so I was thinking all AESA since we were talking about J-20. Yes, for an MSA, it could be much more difficult, or it could be not that much more difficult to change the size of the radar plate. But if is much more difficult, then the F-14 example would be irrelevant to a J-20 AESA example and if it's not, then I'd still want to see a source on how the decision was actually made and if it was made to scale a jet to a radar that could be easily modified.
 

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
They should be able to build one, or at least do a HIFV conversion. You don't need an Abrams to fight amphibious forces.
Abrams 120mm would out gun any amphibious tank or IFV the PLANMC has. And this Version would rival Type 99B in terms of protection and sensors. Easily defeating the light armor of the Amphibious and Airborne vehicles well matching the heavier vehicles that could be deployed.

The Abrams, even without the COIN set up, is still to heavy ( mid 60 tons at least) to drive around tropical, irrigated farmland).
not all of Taiwan is irrigated farm land, and despite how it might seem even a tank of 70 tons only exerts 16.5 PSI. I’ll be nice though and say 17PSI because these have add on features. That’s Less than a parked Toyota Hilux pickup truck at 25-30PSI and less than an Adult elephant 35psi. That might not seem light but as Elephants are common among developing Asian nations including swamp land, jungle and irrigation farming It should point out that Abrams would not have a huge issue with said conditions.

Next comes the typically generated claims about the Gas Turbine. However since this is based off M1A2C it has an Under armor APU. So idle isn’t an issue. Fuel would be burned don’t get me wrong but the fuel economy is not that far worse than a traditional pistons engine tank. Turbines have higher reliability and less maintenance.
 
Last edited:

Skywatcher

Captain
Abrams 120mm would out gun any amphibious tank or IFV the PLANMC has. And this Version would rival Type 99B in terms of protection and sensors. Easily defeating the light armor of the Amphibious and Airborne vehicles well matching the heavier vehicles that could be deployed.

not all of Taiwan is irrigated farm land, and despite how it might seem even a tank of 70 tons only exerts 16.5 PSI. I’ll be nice though and say 17PSI because these have add on features. That’s Less than a parked Toyota Hilux pickup truck at 25-30PSI.
In motion it would generate PSI on par with an Adult elephant 35psi standing still. That might not seem light but as Elephants are common among developing Asian nations including swamp land, jungle and irrigation farming and that is the tank moving where the Elephant would be standing still. It should point out that Abrams would not have a huge issue with said conditions.

Next comes the typically generated claims about the Gas Turbine. However since this is based off M1A2C it has an Under armor APU. So idle isn’t an issue. Fuel would be burned don’t get me wrong but the fuel economy is not that far worse than a traditional pistons engine tank. Turbines have higher reliability and less maintenance.
An Abrams is just plain overkill for those amphibious vehicles. And if a ZTZ-99A shows up, that means the PLA has enough air support to plonk the Abrams.

It's not the PSI that's a problem ( otherwise an Abrams could cross any bridge), it's that all that weight will overwhelm the embankment of the ditch.
 

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
An Abrams is just plain overkill for those amphibious vehicles. And if a ZTZ-99A shows up, that means the PLA has enough air support to plonk the Abrams.
no such thing as overkill. The aim of the defender is to ensure that no enemy survives. That “Overkill” would do that in spades.
And despite how it seems a well trained tank crew with some work can hide a tank like an Abrams and ambush very effectively.

It's not the PSI that's a problem ( otherwise an Abrams could cross any bridge), it's that all that weight will overwhelm the embankment of the ditch.
The physics of a bridge are different from those of ground. Because the weight would be distributed across an embankment the only issue for the tank would be if the Driver drove the tank over the edge or if the embankment really would be able to hold the weight of anything.

A Bridge is a bit different because the bridge is suspended the tank crossing the bridge is placing its weight on a object that is then rooting into a structure at a small point. If the anchor is not designed to support the weight of the tank it fails
Where on the embankment it’s just distributed into the ground. Driving an Abrams across it would be like driving a dozer or large farm machine across. As long as the embankment is wide enough and the drive careful no problem.
 

Brumby

Major
you originally posted this Yesterday at 2:06 PM
:

to which I reacted Yesterday at 7:21 AM with
:
, to get this reaction from you Yesterday at 2:06 PM
:

that led me to begin with an exclamation Yesterday at 11:45 PM
:

as I don't know what F-16s you meant, and I have no idea why you brought them up while quoting my post which described an irregular warfare on the ground; please elaborate
As I previously indicated there is no relationship to the F-16 discussion and it appears that we are in agreement. As such the "huh?" becomes the head scratcher.
 

Brumby

Major
Yeah, my rebuttals are asking that you say things in the realm of the known, not of the imaginary, and it's not my prerogative to provide evidence for why imaginary claims are false; the claimant must prove that they are true. There's no 2 ways about this; you make a claim, you cite your sources. You don't make a claim and ask others to prove it false or assume it true.

What 1m^2 target? What's an F-16V's RCS when it's strapped with missiles? We can start there, provide your source for an actual RCS and we can work from there.

PS. AWACs are fair to use too.
What we are discussing is relative RCS because RCS is an important component in the radar equation. For example -

upload_2019-6-9_13-47-0.png
One source for the relative RCS. Given that the J-11 and J-16 are derived from the SU-27, its RCS is the proxy. As to external stores, it equally applies to all the airframes under discussion since none of them have internal bays.
upload_2019-6-9_13-50-9.png
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

All things being able (which is not with radar and ECM capability), an airplane with a lower relative RCS profile has the detection range advantage. It is in the physics of radar

When you take into consideration jamming, it also favors the platform with the RCS advantage as previously mentioned.
upload_2019-6-9_14-3-34.png

You clearly didn't read the studies. It's not saying, "When PRC comes with a missile saturation strike, either they might cripple ROC's airport OR the ROCAF might be able to last 2-4 weeks." It's saying, "If the PRC comes with a missile saturation strike, ROCAF is grounded in hours, airports cratered, aircraft destroyed. But if the PRC comes in with little airplane games to tease air space with small encounters, the ROCAF might last 2-4 weeks." And by the way, these are 2 articles, both RAND.

That's all you have to say after you asked me to provide you with where it says the ROCAF would be dead on Day 1 and I provided exactly what you wanted? LOL OK sure. What's hidden in the mountains? Not airports. If there is an exposed runway for aircraft to operate from, that's not considered hidden from any missiles.
Air operations will be disrupted when runways are under attack. This is different from being incapable to operate to counter China's attempt at air dominance. The article basically states that under certain conditions, the RoC will be able to operate for between 2 - 4 weeks. That statement is different from incapacitating the RoC's air capability. Taiwan also has long range cruise missiles that can similarly disrupt China's air operations. It is not an entirely one way event.

It's actually not a Chinese claim that I referenced; it is an American intelligence claim that the AIM-120 design can no longer compete with advanced missiles like PL-15. But you are right; there are lots of unknowns about it so I said it "likely" give an advantage to the PLAAF because it seems that everyone with knowledge on it believes it will be provide the PLAAF an advantage over the AIM-120X but we don't have the numbers on it. So... likely.
The PL-15 may well have the longer range but the question you don't address is that having the range without the appropriate radar makes the range advantage redundant. Additionally when you take into jamming at ,long range, it favors the jammer as opposed to the acquisition radar. Any effective jamming will degrade the range of the PL-15 because of the inability to acquire a targeting solution.

upload_2019-6-9_14-7-38.png

Burn-through range is the range at which the strength of the radar echo becomes greater than that of the jamming noise. The radar return is proportional to 1/R 4 since it must travel to the target and return to the host radar. The jamming signal only travels in one direction, and is thus proportional to 1/R 2. The more closely an aircraft approaches the victim radar source, the more likely is the radar signal to break through the jamming noise (see Figure 6.17 which illustrates the principle). Therefore distance do not favor an exchange

Lastly, the F-16V has the AN/ALE 50 besides its ECM pod. Towed decoys have demonstrated its usefulness in both Kosovo and in Iraq. The Chinese do not have towed decoys. A study demonstrating the difference between having one and not.
upload_2019-6-9_14-12-24.png
 
Last edited:

manqiangrexue

Brigadier
What we are discussing is relative RCS because RCS is an important component in the radar equation. For example -

View attachment 52701
One source for the relative RCS. Given that the J-11 and J-16 are derived from the SU-27, its RCS is the proxy. As to external stores, it equally applies to all the airframes under discussion since none of them have internal bays.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

All things being able (which is not with radar and ECM capability), an airplane with a lower relative RCS profile has the detection range advantage. It is in the physics of radar

When you take into consideration jamming, it also favors the platform with the RCS advantage as previously mentioned.
How many missiles are carried with the chart you showed? It doesn't have J-10B/C value so how do you compare? Flanker has higher RCS than light fighter; that I know. The question is whether a Chinese radar could track an F-16V with missiles from a range far enough to utilize the range of the PL-15. And this radar could be an AWAC radar.

Air operations will be disrupted when runways are under attack. This is different from being incapable to operate to counter China's attempt at air dominance. The article basically states that under certain conditions, the RoC will be able to operate for between 2 - 4 weeks. That statement is different from incapacitating the RoC's air capability.
You are either trolling or have a very very bad reading comprehension problem. The article states that under the condition that the Chinese limit themselves to aerial confrontations and don't use a missile saturation attack, ROC aircraft may fly 2-4 weeks. If the PRC chooses to go straight for a missile saturation attack, hours at most before all ROCAF runways are cratered and aircraft killed on the ground. You asked me to cite this information and I've cited everything you wanted 100%. You are now down to deliberately misinterpreting clear English paragraphs.

Taiwan also has long range cruise missiles that can similarly disrupt China's air operations. It is not an entirely one way event.
ROC has few missiles and few interceptors. PRC has many many missiles and many many interceptors. That's the point; there's no expectation that the PRC won't take any losses at all but this is a fight that it absolutely cannot back down from, losses and all. I didn't say it was a one-way event; I said it's a numbers game.

The PL-15 may well have the longer range but the question you don't address is that having the range without the appropriate radar makes the range advantage redundant.
Once again, you have provided no figures for the RCS of a combat-loaded F-16V. If you have such numbers, we can compare to what is known of China's AESA radars and KJ-2000/KJ-500 capabilities.

Additionally when you take into jamming at ,long range, it favors the jammer as opposed to the acquisition radar. Any effective jamming will degrade the range of the PL-15 because of the inability to acquire a targeting solution. Burn-through range is the range at which the strength of the radar echo becomes greater than that of the jamming noise. The radar return is proportional to 1/R 4 since it must travel to the target and return to the host radar. The jamming signal only travels in one direction, and is thus proportional to 1/R 2. The more closely an aircraft approaches the victim radar source, the more likely is the radar signal to break through the jamming noise (see Figure 6.17 which illustrates the principle).
How would you like to calculate the jamming capabilities of F-16V versus Chinese radars/missile? How would you calculate the jamming capabilities of Chinese fighters against ROC jamming? It seems like you're throwing in arbitrary unknowns and trying to assume that they favor the side you wish to favor just like how you arbitrarily assumed that J-10B/C was "unlikely" to have lower RCS than F-16V even though you had no idea what the J-10B/C number was.

Lastly, the F-16V has the AN/ALE 50 besides its ECM pod. Towed decoys have demonstrated its usefulness in both Kosovo and in Irag. The Chinese do not have towed decoys. A study demonstrating the difference between having one and not.
I'm having trouble reading your chart without context; could you link the source?

How many decoys can a jet tow? Because the PLAAF outnumber the ROCAF and by far more than 2:1 and that number gets really vicious if we're talking about what the ROCAF might manage to get in the air after an initial missile saturation strike on its air bases. In essence, the PLAAF can afford to fire missiles targeting both the fighter and the towed decoy both to a level of saturation, and let's not forget, jets towing decoys must ditch them to pursue evasive maneuvers. Decoys work best in low intensity fighting where someone who gets a one-off shot at you might strike the decoy instead. A jet towing a decoy facing an overwhelming number of enemy fighters closing in all firing multiple missiles is not going to make good use of the decoy.

@Bltizo , I also have never seen a Chinese towed decoy. I don't think they are very hard to make like engines. Is there a reason?
 
Last edited:

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
Air operations will be disrupted when runways are under attack. This is different from being incapable to operate to counter China's attempt at air dominance. The article basically states that under certain conditions, the RoC will be able to operate for between 2 - 4 weeks. That statement is different from incapacitating the RoC's air capability.

I think you should seriously re-read the relevant part in the actual study.
The part suggesting the ROCAF could operate for 2-4 weeks is a scenario where the parameters are limited to air to air engagements, where there is no use of offensive counter air (such as striking at air bases, runways, aircraft on the ground etc).

Given the discussion before hand, obviously the scenario whereby there is no use of OCA is not relevant to what you guys are talking about seeing as the entire discussion includes the use of OCA!
 

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
@Bltizo , I also have never seen a Chinese towed decoy. I don't think they are very hard to make like engines. Is there a reason?

For all we know it's because they have them but don't show them off.

It's also possible that they prefer the use of self protection jamming pods instead -- we've seen those carried extensively by fighters of all types very frequently.


Towed decoys are one solution to the problem of soft killing/evading an incoming missile, but there are obviously multiple ways to skin a cat.
 

manqiangrexue

Brigadier
For all we know it's because they have them but don't show them off.

It's also possible that they prefer the use of self protection jamming pods instead -- we've seen those carried extensively by fighters of all types very frequently.


Towed decoys are one solution to the problem of soft killing/evading an incoming missile, but there are obviously multiple ways to skin a cat.
Thanks. I have an odd idea:

When seeing an enemy two-ship, couldn't the pilot instruct the missile to track and target the one in front and go after the one in the rear only after the lead fighter is downed? If either one is a decoy, it has to be the lagging one.
 
Top