Taiwan Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

[Max Demian]

How many missiles are carried with the chart you showed? It doesn't have J-10B/C value so how do you compare?

I have the numbers for J-10A/B/C. Maybe you can help with weapon RCS? Food for thought: ballistic missile warhead RCS is in the range of 0.1m2. An AAM should be smaller when viewed frontally, unless it comes with big ass wings.

 

[Brumby]

OK I'll take a look again:

#1
#3018 Brumby, Friday at 6:54 AM

no F-16s inside

#2
#3026 Jura, Friday at 7:21 AM

no F-16s inside either

#3
#3031 Brumby, Friday at 2:06 PM

F-16s brought up, my "huh?" followed Friday at 11:45 PM

wrapping up now,

you posted #1 without a reference to F-16s,

so I posted #2 unrelated to F-16 (but related to the content of #1),

and you posted #3 stating #2 was unrelated to F-16; is that it?

Please see my post #3157. My purpose was to discuss the F-16V but got dragged into a broader conversation - not of my choosing.

 

[Gloire_bb]

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".

It is true. But the overall conclusion to this line of our conversation is "it is a game of two".
And, judging historically, preemptive strikes against those who expect them fail to reach their mark more often than not.
No doubt they will be brought down. If not by initial salvos, then by follow-ons in cat-and-mouse games. Or in the air. Or in a landing accident on an hastily repaired unmarked airstrip.
Question is, how fast it will happen, because China is playing against time. And will it be enough for the US to react. If it will, consequences of acting are enormous for 大陆(mainland)

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?

Sustain is a dream which will indeed just kill them(on their own, at least). There are lesser, but still suitable options(like launch on ELINT/OTH warning). Advantages of home ground and friends make them both acceptable and plausible.
Sure, 24/7 is much better. But 0/0 with 6/6 taken out is much worse.

 

[Jura The idiot]

Please see my post #3157. My purpose was to discuss the F-16V but got dragged into a broader conversation - not of my choosing.

maybe I see now, but parameters of F-16V it's minutiae anyway

pressing 'Like' to finish this

 

[manqiangrexue]

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.

I think the fighter sees 2 blips, both looking like fighters. So he should lock his missile onto the blip in the front instead of setting the missile to chase whichever signal is stronger as it gets close because decoy signals are made to be very loud and attractive. If he sees one blip (maybe because the decoy has an RCS greater than the jet, causing it to be the on that shows), then the missile should be programmed to change its target to a smaller blip in front of the original large blip if one shows up when it gets closer.

This is just me throwing ideas for fun. I'm not an ECM expert.

I have the numbers for J-10A/B/C. Maybe you can help with weapon RCS? Food for thought: ballistic missile warhead RCS is in the range of 0.1m2. An AAM should be smaller when viewed frontally, unless it comes with big ass wings.

Interesting. Please give your information with link. I hope it's relatively reliable because I have also found some random numbers on forums that are obviously not trustworthy.

I'm not going to try to find missile RCS and do calculations; there is also pylon to worry about, and the angles between the missile, pylon, and wing, etc... The math is not going to be easy and not going to be accurate done by people who aren't professionally trained. I was looking for a statement from a reliable source, like, "With 4 missiles, RCS is XXX."

 

[Jura The idiot]

大陆

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[Blitzo]

It is true. But the overall conclusion to this line of our conversation is "it is a game of two".
And, judging historically, preemptive strikes against those who expect them fsil to reach their mark more often than not.
No doubt they will be brought down. If not by initial salvos, thrn by follow ons in cat-and-mouse games. Or in the air. Or in landing accident on an hastily repaired unmarked airstrip.
Question is, how fast it will happen, because China is playing against time. And will it be enough for the US to react. If it will, consequences of acting are enormous for 大陆.

Certainly, the overall trajectory of how a Taiwan contingency may unfold and if it becomes a larger conflict would end up being a significant world defining question.

But independent of that, on the overall topic of the cross strait air balance, I would maintain that the four factors I had mentioned before places the ROCAF in a very unenviable position for air power and in a situation which is likely to further worsen in the short to medium term future.

Sustain is a dream which will indeed just kill them(on their own, at least). There are lesser, but still suitable options(like launch on ELINT/OTH warning). Advantages of home ground and friends make them both acceptable and plausible.
Sure, 24/7 is much better. But 0/0 with 6/6 taken out is much worse.

Well I never suggested that the ROCAF's AEW fleet would be nonexistent or unable to operate at all in a conflict, rather that their survivability and relative capability and mission effectiveness would be under doubt -- i.e.: that is obviously in comparison to if they did not face the same pressures that would force them to alter the way they operated their E-2s.

 

[manqiangrexue]

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."

Well, that doesn't surprise me, coming from a guy who could not read the English that RAND only gives the ROCAF 2-4 weeks if the PLA refrained from using a saturation missile attack at the opening of hostilities and then continued to reinforce his incorrect reading, never admitting even the most obvious mistake.

 

[Brumby]

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.

I am not complaining. I am just confused why the conversation was getting broader and further away from my original comments. This plus the inference that I was positing a position which I did make. .

I was checking back on some on the conversation after you raised the issue about strategic balance alteration. Please refer to post #3033 which I was responding to your comments. In that I was already pointing out that the V upgrade was independent to the other things being brought up and regardless it was simply a delaying action and not a balance alteration. .

In a way what you described is superfluous to the V upgrade because those overall considerations are independent to whether Taiwan did or did not undergo the F-16 upgrade. That said, the improved capability does bring to Taiwan additional deterrent capability and impose more complex calculus onto the Chinese planners. It will more likely than not allow Taiwan to be in the game longer and provide more time for the US to mobilise and to respond. Without air domination, China is unlikely to risk invasion.

 

[manqiangrexue]

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.

Well, that's what you get when you ask me to count imaginary points on a non-existent map to prove your point.

They have most definitely got their priorities wrong. They should recognize their blood and recognize the only way they can become a powerful force in the world is to rejoin China. Until they do, they remain a pawn that only draws pity.

Question is, how fast it will happen, because China is playing against time. And will it be enough for the US to react. If it will, consequences of acting are enormous for 大陆(mainland)

Very very questionable to wait for a country that has never engaged a mighty nuclear rival to defend any of its allies, not Ukraine, Georgia, no one, and the chances of there being a first diminish every day with the growing strength of the PLA. That said, if it does happen, the consequences will be felt globally with total nuclear war.

PS. I have no idea why you put the mainland in Chinese characters and I'm very curious. Why?