And you think China has built all the new planes they can build? They are far from finished.
Taiwan's Reaction to PLA Force Modernization
- Thread starter unknauthr
- Start date
- Status
And you think China has built all the new planes they can build? They are far from finished.
szbd
Junior Member
Yes I don't think so and this is the reason why China should use all her strength on fighting Taiwan if it happened. You use 300 plane, you may lose 200 and fail. You use 500, you may lose 200 and win.
[/QUOTE]
Don't tell me China's armed forces are only designed to deal with Taiwan - it needs to potentially be able to deal with other neighbours if problems arise.[/QUOTE]
I said China can use missiles and old planes to deal with other countries.
Chengdu J-10
Junior Member
Don't post one liners again, this only causes an argument and off the topic conversation. As to your question Taiwan too has aggressor squads but the aren't as funded or equipped heavily like PRC ones. J-10/11, Su-27/30 are are piloted by PRC elites pilots with an average training hour of 200 hours close to US piloting hours. So in a conflict between PRC vs ROC these aircrafts will be piloted by PRC elites. While the J-7/8 will be piloted by the standard PRC pilots with less training hours. So in a conflict of PRC vs ROC the ROC has Ching Kuo, F-16, Mirage aircrafts which hold only advantages over J-8/7 (all though J-7 are recieving HMS an can put up a fight against early F-16), but what about PRC J-10/11 & Su-27/30 and soon FC-1 what can ROC offer to counter these? Even so the modern PRC aircrafts are still more then the ROC entire fleet, but this is unessary and unwise to send all your modern aircraft into battle leaving your homeland with less modern aircraft to defend the nation.
J-7 not having BVR is a disadvantage, although they do have all aspect missiles. And we know by record, the Python 3, the missile which the PL-8 is based from, is quite deadly, much more if improvements are done to the missile. J-7s should act as support to planes that already have BVR, like for example, the J-8Fs with PL-12s and J-8Ds with PL-11s. The J-8s would act like hit and run snipers using their BVRAAMs, drawing fire as they run away The J-7s can jump on the aircraft trying to engage the J-8s.
Fighting active BVRAAM vs. active BVRAAM, and going mano o mano in BFM regardless of whatever aircraft you are using, all these amounts to an unwise attritional strategy. The guys with the bigger numbers will only win. Even the PLAAF should not pursue this strategy even if this gives them an inherent advantage. The only smart strategy is to destroy the airbases by whatever means necessary.
If the ROCAF fighters are forced to get tied up by obsolete J-7s and J-8IIs, allowing Su-30s to pass through and hit their bases with KAB bunker busters, it does not matter how many J-7s and J-8s are lost, the battle is lost to the ROCAF.
Fighting active BVRAAM vs. active BVRAAM, and going mano o mano in BFM regardless of whatever aircraft you are using, all these amounts to an unwise attritional strategy. The guys with the bigger numbers will only win. Even the PLAAF should not pursue this strategy even if this gives them an inherent advantage. The only smart strategy is to destroy the airbases by whatever means necessary.
If the ROCAF fighters are forced to get tied up by obsolete J-7s and J-8IIs, allowing Su-30s to pass through and hit their bases with KAB bunker busters, it does not matter how many J-7s and J-8s are lost, the battle is lost to the ROCAF.
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 675
Guest
Who is to say China will be able to decide when a conflict starts? Or are you implying China will find a pretext for war when it decides its airforce, etc is ready for it?
You have to be joking. Do you really think China's old fighters could deal with regional powers like Japan, India, South Korea, etc? They'd have no chance.
Schumacher
Senior Member
Making such a big statement without much details only makes u look ignorant.
Perhaps a more detailed comparison of the aircraft of these countries to explain yourself would be helpful ?
Well prove him ignorant yourself or otherwise refain from calling others ignorant by short posts....and also last time I checked the rules, it had really specific line that we should use only internationally understandable English..."You" isn't to be written "U"... Such slang makes our forum only look like an immature kids chat room.
Gollevainen, super moderator
Gollevainen, super moderator
Last edited by a moderator:
Did I say switch to another AA missile? No, I did not say that. So, you have no idea regarding the production capabilities of TW's missile production line and you just assume it's AA?
Wrong. The capability is kind small due to the requirement and it has to give way to other needs.
OK, if you say this has to be declared, how about a link so I could correct myself on this?
Did I say one or two shipment? Did I say one shipment has more than 200? Sorry, that's not what I said.
I said the total number in at least two published shipments.
Yes and no. Yes, they are upgrading to do this. NO, they are not just upgrading to do this.
Wrong again. The original configuration "could" support AIM-120 after upgrade. This came from the ROCAF itself.
So, it takes time to upgrade them and don't forget the radar is not the same as MLU.
They are still under upgrading.
Only intended, budget still not past yet.
Not brag? Ya, right. There are users from China on this forum.
So, Jane's never make mistakes? I believed itmight be you, if my memory served correctly, on Key Publishing forum mentioned Jane's reported Russian and China worked together to develop PL-12 and then later withdraw it due to error?
Jane's is an excellent sources but doesn't mean theere are no grey areas.
So? Is there any connection between the real number has been upgraded? Not really.
Is this a good evidence shows China has 1000 R77? No.
China imported couple new radar packages couple years ago for evaluation. I think it was reported 12 sets at the time.
So, upgrade is underway, yes. They also have their own products and why get 1000 R77.
It's your assumption, not from solid sources. Also no other infromation ca,e from China side and this is not something they could not talk about.
So, you simply assumed:
1. the agressor squadren of ROCAF is not getting enough funding. Base on what ground?
2. the pilots of F-16 and M2000 are getting way less training hours than those you mentioned. Ya, based on what ground?
In an article published by AFM (or AI) regarding M2000 with ROCAF, it's the only time some flying number were published. If you think they fly less hours, please read it again.
Assumption is good based on good information, not with imagination.
- Status