Taiwan Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

manqiangrexue said:

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.

Click to expand...

I have demonstrated from radar physics that an advantage in relative RCS carry with it an advantage in detection range and jamming. That is a fact based on radar science. To undercut my position you have to demonstrate that somehow Chinese radar is far superior to offset those advantages. So far you have offered nothing besides claim based on "could".

manqiangrexue said:

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.

Click to expand...

Scenarios by nature are compartmentalised. In an actual conflict, all bets are off. Runways can be repaired and the Taiwanese do have mountain bases. Did the study discuss how the missile saturation attack will affect air operation for those planes based in the mountains?

Oh come on. We all learned how it works in Vietnam, against an air force and navy comparatively(for its time and against given opponent) far more capable than PLAAF, and in a far less suitable geography.

manqiangrexue said:

Even if one manages to get airborne, and somehow it isn't shot down like a drunk fat fly,

Click to expand...

Find a map, and count how many times you will be shoot down on a route to intercept this drank fly. If not by SAMs, then by fighters.

Gloire_bb said:

Oh come on. We all learned how it works in Vietnam, against an air force and navy comparatively(for its time and against given opponent) far more capable than PLAAF, and in a far less suitable geography.


Find a map, and count how many times you will be shoot down on a route to intercept this drank fly. If not by SAMs, then by fighters.

Click to expand...

OK, I count none. SAMs blown, fighters destroyed on the ground.

Bltizo said:

The survivability of ROCAF AEW&C aircraft would obviously be in question given PLA OCA and the difference in strategic depth as aforementioned. Considering ROCAF E-2s and their associated airbase would be considered high value targets by the PLA in the first place and that as AEW&C aircraft they require more specialized facilities to effectively operate from dispersed FARP areas -- yeah I do expect the survivability and mission effectiveness of the ROCAF's six E-2Ks to be significantly in doubt.

This of course is all before they even get into the air.

Click to expand...

ROCAF knows about this interest as well, so their most prised assets will be protected and hidden well enough. If absolutely needed, by flying some of them to unknown "friendly" airbases outside of the Island.(where they can respawn, btw). Or simply do their job under american flag in waters to the South East of Taiwan.
As i mentioned before, there are all too many analogies to be used from Vietnam war.
Soviet recon/ELINT ships off the Vietnamese coast can be replicated in one way or another.

Furthermore, unlike its existing chinese counterparts, E-2K is a STOVL aircraft with fairly lax short term service requirements. So both solutions can be mixed.

manqiangrexue said:

OK, I count none. SAMs blown, fighters destroyed on the ground.

Click to expand...

I most welcome appearence of a worthy and devoted opponent to our friend from f-16.net.
Now air discussions are balanced, as all things should be!
(Joke)

Back to the topic.
And if not? If SAMs are blown and fighters are destroyed on the ground, there is little to be talked about, seems like Taiwanese chinese finally got their priorities right in your scenario.
But this scenario is called "small victorious war". Small victorious wars brought quite a few historic surprises.

manqiangrexue said:

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.

Click to expand...

But when would the decoy be deployed? Even before being attacked? Assuming the latter, can a fighter radar discriminate between a plane and a decoy at long range or does he instead see one blip? I suspect the decoy becomes noticable only at missile homing range.

Gloire_bb said:

ROCAF knows about this interest as well, so their most prised assets will be protected and hidden well enough. If absolutely needed, by flying some of them to unknown "friendly" airbases outside of the Island.

Click to expand...

If your prevailing argument is "PLA won't know where they are because ROCAF will have hidden them well" that is fine. I think it's a bit of a lazy argument because I can come up with an equally lazy response by saying "PLA know the ROCAF will seek to hide E-2s so will dedicate intelligence to track them".

If we leave that aside and suggest that the ROCAF are going to keep them hidden and successfully manage to hide them prior to onset of hostilities, that is fine as well, but in that case you end up with the issue that Taiwan will have no AEW cover for when the initial fighting starts.


And even considering ROCAF attempts to protect and hide their AEW aircraft, I think even you must agree that the small number of E-2s they have, the overall strategic vulnerability of Taiwan to OCA, and the limited strategic depth of Taiwan as an island in general means the prospects of the ROCAF being able to sustain a combat effective AEW capability during wartime are bleak?

Furthermore, unlike its existing chinese counterparts, E-2K is a STOVL aircraft with fairly lax short term service requirements.

Click to expand...

Also, I think you meant to write STOL rather than STOVL. The E-2 obviously does not have vertical landing capabilities.
For this point, in my previous post I did acknowledge that E-2s could be operated at dispersed FARP areas, but the problem with AEW&C aircraft is the infrastructure and personnel you need to support anything resembling sustained high tempo operations.

Also, PLA AEW&C obviously do not have STOL capabilities but they do not need them either, given:
- larger size of PLA AEW&C means they can operate from bases well beyond ROC strike ranges and still deploy to the area
- the overall much lower threat of ROC strikes and OCA against mainland Chinese targets in general per the vast differential in strategic depth
STOL is nice, but for an AEW&C having range, endurance a large sensor and large C2 capability are much more attractive attributes given the purpose of what the aircraft type is meant to achieve.

Of course for the ROCAF, the E-2 platform is definitely the least worst option as it offers increased survivability compared to a true medium-large AEW&C platform.

Bltizo said:

That post wasn't directed specifically at you but at everyone discussing the cross strait air balance over the last few pages. After all I think everyone's already established that the F-16V offers a qualitative improvement to the ROCAF's combat fighter fleet compared to what it had before the F-16V.


However, your original post which started these few pages of discussion clearly indicate that you are thinking about the cross strait balance of power as well, when you start to try and qualitatively compare F-16V with Chinese fighters.




By making that sentence (and in particularly the bolded part), one can only interpret that you are thinking about the air force level of capability, meaning you yourself have opened the discussion to air force levels of comparison. And that is why the last few pages have discussed the overall balance of air power across the strait as well, it's because we've interpreted it so with what you wrote.

If you want to retract that statement for something else to limit the scope of the discussion then that is fine.
E.g., if you'd written something like "AIM-120Ds paired with F-16Vs will give the ROCAF significantly greater A2A capability than what they had in the past when operating older fighters and older missiles".

Click to expand...

I can't help it if people interpret my statement as changing the strategic balance. I will not retract my original statement that the "F-16V will give the Taiwan Air Force a qualitative edge against the like of J-11, J-16 and J-10B/Cs.". On their respective attributes I believe the F-16V is superior. Others may not agree with my reasoning and the attributes chosen. That is fine and people can choose to disagree. However all I will do is to clarify that the scope of my comments are limited to a discussion comparing the attributes between platforms and not necessarily connected to a strategic balance between the two neighbours. That is a politically tainted conversation which I have no intention of engaging in as it is a bridge to no where.

This is a military forum to discuss the capabilities of platforms and that was the purpose of the conversation. .

question:

what are the most suitable areas on Taiwan's west coast for establishing a beachhead please?

(I've watched some vid that I can't find now claiming there're just three of them)

Brumby said:

I can't help it if people interpret my statement as changing the strategic balance. I will not retract my original statement that the "F-16V will give the Taiwan Air Force a qualitative edge against the like of J-11, J-16 and J-10B/Cs.". On their respective attributes I believe the F-16V is superior. Others may not agree with my reasoning and the attributes chosen. That is fine and people can choose to disagree. However all I will do is to clarify that the scope of my comments are limited to a discussion comparing the attributes between platforms and not necessarily connected to a strategic balance between the two neighbours. That is a politically tainted conversation which I have no intention of engaging in as it is a bridge to no where.

This is a military forum to discuss the capabilities of platforms and that was the purpose of the conversation. .

Click to expand...

That's fine, but in that case you can't really complain if other people interpreted your statement as a reflection about what you believed the cross strait balance of air power is and continue the discussion there as they see fit.

If you want to only talk about platform vs platform comparisons without comparing how they could alter the air force vs air force balance then that is fine but I'm sure you understand the way you phrased and continue to phrase your statement means people are not obligated to contain the discussion to your requested scope.

Brumby said:

I have demonstrated from radar physics that an advantage in relative RCS carry with it an advantage in detection range and jamming. That is a fact based on radar science. To undercut my position you have to demonstrate that somehow Chinese radar is far superior to offset those advantages. So far you have offered nothing besides claim based on "could".

Click to expand...

But you have not demonstrated any relative advantage in radar RCS of F-16V over J-10B/C. It is smaller than the Flanker, but the Flanker has a bigger radar. Small fighters are not known to have advantages in BVR over heavy fighters given the same level of tech. I offered nothing because it is YOUR claim that the F-16V is a superior aircraft so all I need to do is discredit your sources. I did not necessarily make a claim that these Chinese fighters are technologically superior to the F-16V because I don't know this so I don't have to offer anything.

Brumby said:

Scenarios by nature are compartmentalised. In an actual conflict, all bets are off. Runways can be repaired and the Taiwanese do have mountain bases. Did the study discuss how the missile saturation attack will affect air operation for those planes based in the mountains?

Click to expand...

If you can read English, it says ALL runways cratered, ALL aircraft destroyed. In English, that includes those in the mountains. And once again, mountains cannot hide runways and jets because if it's clear enough to use for take-off, then it's clear enough to see and hit. The study discussed that the ROCAF can repair runways but that would be nearly impossible under active PLAAF attack, which is to follow the missile strike. READ that stuff instead of asking me obvious questions.

Brumby said:

I am already been charitable with the J-10B/C. Every known modern 4.5 gen airplane out there has a RCS of between 05 to 1 m2. That is the limit with what you can do with stealth coating. If you insist that the J10B/C has a lower RCS then you need to provide references. Even with parity on RCS (that is an assumption) then it boils down to radar and ECM. The F-16V has at least a 4th gen AESA radar and that was by way of inheriting the technologies from the F-22/F-35. In comparison, we don't even know for sure whether the J-10C has a working first generation AESA radar considering that the Pentagon believe that the Chinese are currently having difficulty with radar development. Some important tech in driving AESA capability is DSP and FGPA , both technologies that the Chinese lag behind the US. This is one of the key driver behind China 2025 because these tech drives military capability. On balance, the APG-83 will more likely than not have a detection advantage.

Click to expand...

I have never made a claim that the J-10B/C's RCS is anything. All I said is that the J-10B/C is a similar class fighter to the F-16V and there is no reason at all to assume that either has a stealth advantage over the other, much less an advantage that is still useful with combat load. You are the one trying to frame an advantage on it so you supply the evidence and I cut it down. That's how it works when you make the claim.

The problem for you is that you are trying to say that the US xxx is better than the Chinese xxx with insufficient data on what the US has and no data on what the Chinese have. If we go by he-said-she-said, a Chinese radar team has already said that they have an AESA that will fit into JF-17 that can match the F-35 AESA. APG-83 more than likely nothing. There you go again making those assumptions with no evidence at all.

Brumby said:

The AN/ALE50 is designed to work cooperatively with its onboard ECM suite. Which one is deployed is dependent on the threat. We were discussing the context of long range BVR i.e. PL-15. I have previously mentioned (in this thread) with long range targeting the launch mode boils down to three types - (I) initial lock with mid course update; (ii) fire and forget; and (iii) home on jam. The PL-15 will particularly be susceptible to towed decoys because it basically homes in on emission signals that the decoy will replicate to attarct its attention. The AN/ALE carries 4 decoys. Should it get Britecloud, then it will get 12.

Click to expand...

First of all, we are getting into an ECM vs ECM situation where the decoy will try to fool the missile but the missile's no dummy; it's programmed to overcome that. Nobody here knows the sophistication of that interaction. Secondly, once again, with a massive numerical advantage, (and that's jet over jet multiplied by the number of missiles) a decoy pod will be toast after throwing off 1 missile. Then it will be the F-16's turn to eat the next PL-15.