@manqiangrexue
I suspect the context of the 14,365kg figure for F-22 was without engines, APU, gun, radar, computers, etc.
Your link is 1995; that is not the modern weight of the F-22. If that site were properly maintained for declassified information, it would have put the 19.7 ton figure up instead of using a figure for an aircraft halfway through manufacturing, which is not what empty weight means and not what it refers to on other aircraft. In other words, you and I have just done more work than that site for finding the known value for one of the most popularly-checked aircraft in the world than whoever maintains that website. What are the chances that he has numbers for classified Chinese weapons correct? Zero.
what would be the link to
"RAND only gives the ROCAF 2-4 weeks if the PLA refrained from using a saturation missile attack at the opening of hostilities"
?
(sorry if already posted, but this thread has been recently doing like ten pages daily, so I ask)
Page xviii
"In the Air Sovereignty vignette, we explore the relative air-to-air capabilities of Taiwan’s fighter force against the PLA’s J-10, J-11A FLANKER, and the J-11B modified FLANKER in a relatively
fair fight, consisting of multiple encounters of four PLA aircraft against two defenders. The vignette features Taiwan’s fighters operating in pairs to protect Taiwan’s airspace and SLOCs. These defenders encounter four PLA aggressors, and the vignette tests how many such incursions Taiwan can contest. The three current fighters Taiwan operates have roughly similar survivability against these threats; although the F-16 retrofit offers an improvement over Taiwan’s current aircraft when it becomes fully operational, it will be less capable than the J-11B. The new JSFs offers greater survivability. We do assume differences in overall effectiveness among the aircraft, primarily because of their varying ability to handle likely PLA countermeasures when outnumbered. The JSF is the most capable of coping in dynamic multiship engagements, followed by the F-16, the Mirage, and finally the F-CK, which has the poorest ability in this regard. The aircraft’s relative capability is not the only factor to note: The performance of the options is also tied to the overall number of aircraft in the force, because we are assessing how many engagements can be sustained before Taiwan is unable to contest its airspace. Against current threats, the three options with the largest fighter force structure can maintain operations for one to more than four months; however, in the future, when facing such systems as the J-11B upgrade armed with PL-15 missiles, the difference between these three options narrows.
They can sustain operations for roughly two to four weeks."
That is the pretext to the estimate that the ROCAF may last 2-4 weeks. In this limited scenario where the PLAAF only "attacks" by sending 4 jets to test 2 ROCAF defenders, they estimate that the ROCAF has about 2-4 weeks before the losses pile up and they are toast. This is not the scenario of full out missile assault.
Brumby insisted, even after being corrected, that this paragraph somehow meant that under PLA saturation missile strike, the ROCAF airbases would still be survivable for 2-4 weeks.
Yep, it always starts, devolves into, or ends in a personal attack!
No, I pointed out exactly what he did and he was ashamed of it. He was hoping that the huge gaping mistake would be lost in the mess of posts flying back and forth. Find the personal insult if you can, Brat, because just like last time, I suspect you didn't read anything.
