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.
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?
