Sensors, fusion, networking, situational awareness, weapons, ECM are the most impactful determinants of overall net capability/competitiveness for any two modern fighter aircraft of the same generation.
J-16 and J-10C most certainly are in the same generation with access to the same scope of subsystems that the Chinese aerospace industry can offer, and uses many of the same key weapons systems.
So it's entirely reasonable that J-16s and J-10Cs and are evenly matched in many domains, assuming any DACT they do is on "equal" rules of engagement.
From there the only differences are physical and monetary; range, payload, number of crew onboard and cost of procurement and maintenance -- but in small scale (1v1, 2v2 or even 4v4) DACT, those factors would be far less important anyhow.
Beyond DACT ROEs though, it get's a lot more complicated e.g. A fighter group with greater range has the ability to dictate where/when the engagement takes place, which can severely reduce the effectiveness of the opponent, even if they have the same avionics/weapons. This can force the side with the shorter-range to attack first and seize the initiative, they have to disrupt the enemy before it sets up... (I'm basically just describing the situation of the PAF vs IAF right now lolz.)
It's no different than oldschool cavalry tactics, but in 3D instead of 2D... Mobility determines the ability to close, withdraw, and flank at will. It's this ability which the shorter-range side has to disrupt somehow. All of this needs to happen before the engagement/DACT starts, and that setup determines the probability/odds of the engagement.
I think he is referring to this:Really? ... any links to the sources ?
Taiwan’s air force is no longer scrambling each time Chinese aircraft encroach on its air defence identification zone but tracks the intruders with ground based missiles instead to help save resources, a senior official said on Monday.
He says, largely use land based SAMs, though I dont know if they have completely stopped, or it is political messaging so that they dont appear weak, or it will now selectively intercept(I think this is more possible)Speaking in parliament, Deputy Defence Minister Chang Che-ping said that initially fighter jets were sent out each time to intercept the Chinese aircraft, whose missions are concentrated in the southeastern part of Taiwan’s ADIZ.
As that took up valuable time and resources that was then changed, with Taiwan sending slower aircraft up if China did too, but that has changed too, Chang added.
“So we now largely use land-based missile forces to track them. We are considering the war of attrition issue,” he said.
I think he is referring to this:
He says, largely use land based SAMs, though I dont know if they have completely stopped, or it is political messaging so that they dont appear weak, or it will now selectively intercept(I think this is more possible)
They are just saving "face". They cant keep the rate of interception, but they need to say to the public that they are doing something, so they are now talking about SAMsI still don't understand why it is a good idea to rely on SAM for such missions. Leaking the SIGINT was probably the last thing you want to do especially considering how those SAM sites lack mobility.