Nah, I'm just trying to compare them plane-to-plane. Besides, can't expect J-20As to do all the work against ROCAF F-16Vs all the time when they have the USAF and JASDF to deal with as well.
Other than J-10Cs, what about J-16s and J-11BGs?
Taiwan Military News, Reports, Data, etc.
- Thread starter Gollevainen
- Start date
Other than J-10Cs, what about J-16s and J-11BGs?
Both should be able to outstick it if using PL-15. That’s just platform based comparison though. Not factoring into things like training, EW, situational awareness from AWAC, etc.
I actually disagree.
I'll be bold and say that even J-10As and J-11Bs can compete with F-16Vs in a realistic Taiwan contingency combat environment, because the PLA fighters will be supported not only by additional 4.5th and 5th gen fighters, but also extensive high end AEW&C and standoff EW and escort EW, as well as benefit from significant effects of friendly fires directed to ROCAF air bases and supporting infra.
At the system of systems level, the F-16Vs would be:
- outnumbered quantitatively
- qualitatively outmatched by PLA 4.5 and 5th gen fighters
- at a significant if not crippling force multiplier situational awareness and command/control disadvantage
- at a significant if not crippling force multiplier EW disadvantage
- have their own airbases, C4I centers be at significant questionable operational status given weight of PLA strikes/fires
Given the above, in the event that any F-16Vs which happen to be in a position engage J-10As, the F-16Vs would still be at a significant situational awareness and EW disadvantage as well as likely be at risk of the J-10As being able to call on support from friendly 4.5 and 5th gen fighters to if not directly engage the F-16Vs on their behalf, then to at least provide supportive action to enable the J-10As to engage in an advantageous position.
There will basically be no situation where PLAAF fighters would engage ROCAF fighters without massive overwhelming advantage in quantity of fighters, quality of fighters, scale of AEWC force multipliers, scale of EW support.
There's really no reason to compare things on a plane to plane basis, especially for this conflict situation and the participants involved.
The PLA are not going to drip feed individual fighters to engage individual ROCAF fighters, they're going to do the opposite and throw massive fires against ROCAF basing and infra alongside an air superiority campaign where they have massive qualitative and quantitative superiority in fighters as well as aerial AEWC and EW force multipliers, where the sum is much greater than the individual parts.
As I clarified in one of the above posts the comparison is about fighter to fighter only in a sterile environment without considerations such as EW, training, AWAC support etc. There is a reason why J-10B is relegated to the fourth generation division during Golden Helmet instead of playing with the big boys in 4.5th gen division.
Yes, and I addressed to ACuriosPlaFan regarding the nature of his question.
I think a good rule of thumb, is that one on one plane comparisons are useful only for technical/spec sheet interests.
But in a real world environment, if you aren't looking at system of systems as default (if not multi-domain), then it's not a comparison worth talking about.
As for the "one on one" comparison of J-10 variants to F-16V, J-10C should have elements in terms of networking and sensor fusion that places it ahead of F-16V in important respects.
My view is that in a realistic Taiwan contingency, it shouldn't matter too much if a pilot is sitting in a J-10A, B or C, going up against ROCAF F-16Vs, so long as the rest of the friendly fighters in the airspace and AEWC and EW are all still present in the same way. The result shouldn't change much.
Well, in a realistic Taiwan contingency scenario the head of the Rocket Force would probably get a court martial if more than 10 ROCAF assets get airborne…
Imo even that is a better answer to give.
Sometimes there are certain types of questions which I think are best serviced by explaining how it should actually be asked instead of going along with the initial premise.
Mishap with UAV during ground test
I recall in recent days there's also a Sky Sword II complex that had to be returned to NCSIST because it just straight up didn't work with very basic issues like command vehicle refusing to talk to the missile carrier.
Us mainlanders like to make fun of NCSIST for being incompetent but what is the actual issue here? Are they being spread too thin, both in terms of number of projects they're taking on as well as having to do both R&D plus manufacturing? NCSIST have always seemed me as mostly R&D orientated, ala DRDO and when they are tasked with building things for the military they do it in an artisanal way instead of large scale MIC manufacturing. Is that impression correct?
I recall in recent days there's also a Sky Sword II complex that had to be returned to NCSIST because it just straight up didn't work with very basic issues like command vehicle refusing to talk to the missile carrier.
Us mainlanders like to make fun of NCSIST for being incompetent but what is the actual issue here? Are they being spread too thin, both in terms of number of projects they're taking on as well as having to do both R&D plus manufacturing? NCSIST have always seemed me as mostly R&D orientated, ala DRDO and when they are tasked with building things for the military they do it in an artisanal way instead of large scale MIC manufacturing. Is that impression correct?
They should stop shopping for parts from Aliexpress.