Taiwan Military News, Reports, Data, etc.


Brumby

Major
The PRC wouldn’t be happy if the US sold Taiwan a potato gun. It’s boiler plate.
If I was Taiwan I would request for AIM-120D. These missiles paired with the F-16V will give the Taiwan Air Force a qualitative edge against the like of J-11, J-16 and J-10B/Cs. There are too few J-20 and is still questionable whether they are ready for prime time with its avionics and sensors.
In BVR, there are 4 variables that matter : RCS, sensors, missiles, and ECM.
 
If I was Taiwan I would request for AIM-120D. These missiles paired with the F-16V will give the Taiwan Air Force a qualitative edge against the like of J-11, J-16 and J-10B/Cs. There are too few J-20 and is still questionable whether they are ready for prime time with its avionics and sensors.
In BVR, there are 4 variables that matter : RCS, sensors, missiles, and ECM.
That would be an upgrade for the ROC, of course (although not an upgrade over coming to their senses), but it would first require F-16s to actually get into the air instead of having all their runways bombed. It's not easy to transport them to highways either... especially with all the ground around them in rubble. But even then, the 120D is a very expensive Mach 4 missile with a range of 160-180km. To say the least, with China's PL-15 and PL-21, you would not be able to conclude any qualitative advantage against any aircraft that could wield them. Rather, the PL-15 is likely and the PL-21 is almost certain to put even the AIM-120D at a disadvantage.
 

siegecrossbow

Brigadier
Staff member
Super Moderator
That would be an upgrade for the ROC, of course (although not an upgrade over coming to their senses), but it would first require F-16s to actually get into the air instead of having all their runways bombed. It's not easy to transport them to highways either... especially with all the ground around them in rubble. But even then, the 120D is a very expensive Mach 4 missile with a range of 160-180km. To say the least, with China's PL-15 and PL-21, you would not be able to conclude any qualitative advantage against any aircraft that could wield them. Rather, the PL-15 is likely and the PL-21 is almost certain to put even the AIM-120D at a disadvantage.
I don't think PL-21 is designed to go against maneuvering targets even though it has a longer range. I agree with your assessment about PL-15.
 

Bltizo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
I don't think PL-21 is designed to go against maneuvering targets even though it has a longer range. I agree with your assessment about PL-15.
PL-21 is the name we've used for the ramjet missile that we haven't seen any movement on.
PL-X is the LRAAM we've seen carried by J-16, a while back.

The original study looking into an LRAAM that has been speculated to be linked with PL-X mentioned the missile would be equipped with attitude thrusters for maneuverability. And the concept diagram linked with it showed a number of aircraft on the "receiving end" -- one of which was an F-22.
So I certainly wouldn't rule out the possibility that PL-X was designed to be able to take down maneuvring targets under certain circumstances. If we had any good pictures of PL-X to confirm side thrusters that would certainly be useful.

 

siegecrossbow

Brigadier
Staff member
Super Moderator
PL-21 is the name we've used for the ramjet missile that we haven't seen any movement on.
PL-X is the LRAAM we've seen carried by J-16, a while back.

The original study looking into an LRAAM that has been speculated to be linked with PL-X mentioned the missile would be equipped with attitude thrusters for maneuverability. And the concept diagram linked with it showed a number of aircraft on the "receiving end" -- one of which was an F-22.
So I certainly wouldn't rule out the possibility that PL-X was designed to be able to take down maneuvring targets under certain circumstances. If we had any good pictures of PL-X to confirm side thrusters that would certainly be useful.

If it could take down maneuvering targets I doubt that it could do so at an extreme range (>=300 KM). I think that it might be too expensive to waste against non-high value assets.
 

Bltizo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
If it could take down maneuvering targets I doubt that it could do so at an extreme range (>=300 KM). I think that it might be too expensive to waste against non-high value assets.
I don't think there's anything in the physics of it that would prevent it from taking down fighter sized targets capable of maneuvering, if adequately equipped (i.e.: attitude thrusters, maybe dual pulse motor, and of course good flight control software).

As for cost, who knows. It's a fairly new weapon and in some ways it's a new type of weapon as well. I can see it being produced in large quantities in future for use against opfor aircraft of all types at extended ranges, particularly if it is equipped on larger stealthy aircraft like H-20 given the way future air combat seems to be going.


That said this is off topic and I'd be happy to continue it in a thread over in the air force category if you want
 
If it could take down maneuvering targets I doubt that it could do so at an extreme range (>=300 KM). I think that it might be too expensive to waste against non-high value assets.
How expensive are you thinking that it costs? I know F-16s or aren't exactly shiny 5th gens but they're multitudes more expensive than any AAM could be, plus you could kill an irreplaceable seasoned pilot. That, AND you keep your jets and pilots safe. To snipe down your enemies killing their jets and fighters without any loses, I think the PLAAF can splurge a little.
 

Skywatcher

Captain
here comes
Updated 6 hours ago
Exclusive: U.S. pursues sale of over $2 billion in weapons to Taiwan, sources say, angering China
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
What a bunch of schmucks, they're paying nearly $15 million a tank.

The Moroccans got their zero hour Abrams for half that price ( both cost estimates include the spares and training).

At this point, Taipei can be snookered into paying $500 million per F35B.
 

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
First, the Abrams sold to Morocco were used. Abrams actual production is closed. All Abrams tanks today are Refurbished.
Because in the Cold War Abrams was built prolifically and post Cold War the US DOD shrank the US can pull boneyards mothballed Abrams and rebuild them to modern masterpieces.

Second the Morocco bought M1A1SA. Not a bad package but based on older iteration. Knocked down you could say.
Word is Taiwan bought M1A2X which is said to be based off M1A2Sep 3 aka M1A2C the latest iteration of the Abrams tank. Fully loaded with all the toys.
 

Brumby

Major
That would be an upgrade for the ROC, of course (although not an upgrade over coming to their senses), but it would first require F-16s to actually get into the air instead of having all their runways bombed. It's not easy to transport them to highways either... especially with all the ground around them in rubble. But even then, the 120D is a very expensive Mach 4 missile with a range of 160-180km. To say the least, with China's PL-15 and PL-21, you would not be able to conclude any qualitative advantage against any aircraft that could wield them. Rather, the PL-15 is likely and the PL-21 is almost certain to put even the AIM-120D at a disadvantage.
As I said in BVR engagement, there are 4 variables that matter. Missile range is not determined by advertisement but limited by the other three variables. In other words, you can't target what you can't track. The other three variables such a relative RCS, sensor range and ECM are limiters to the effective range of the PL-15. On those score, I believe the F-16V has the advantage and I will walk them through to argue that the F-16V has an overall qualitative advantage.

First up is RCS. The F-16V has a RCS of 0.5 - 1m2 depending on sources. In comparison, the J-11 (derived from SU-27) has anywhere between 15-25 m2 RCS. The J-16 while better with composites and coating is probably at 5 m2. I can be convinced by data. The J-10B/C, I have no idea but unlikely to have better RCS than the F-16V. So with similar radar capability, a F-16V can detect at a greater distance of +49 % against a 5 m2 target than the 5 m2 target can against the F-16V.

Secondly, the APG-83 is a 4th/5th generation AESA radar depending on how it is defined. It inherited the features from the APG-77/APG-81. What features are handed down is unknown but I will speculate on some of them. The APG-81 is known to use highly advanced TRs which determine the duty cycle and power output. This will give the APG-83 a power gain advantage The DSP is the filter which gives the APG-83 a sensitivity gain advantage. The FGPA will give the APG-83 a processing gain advantage. The combined gain will likely give the APG-83 a tracking range advantage against Chinese AESA and clearly against non AESA radars. This is adding onto the RCS relative gain.

Thirdly, RCS advantage automatically gives a jamming advantage.

upload_2019-6-7_13-59-18.png

.
As shown in above chart, if the RCS of an aircraft is reduced to 0.75 (75%) of its original value, then (1) the jammer power required to achieve the same effectiveness would be 0.75 (75%) of the original value (or -1.25 dB). Likewise, (2) If Jammer power is held constant, then burn-through range is 0.87 (87%) of its original value (-1.25 dB), and (3) the detection range of the radar for the smaller RCS target (jamming not considered) is 0.93 (93%) of its original value (-1.25 dB). Jamming is basically a J/S equation.
The F-16V's AN/ALQ-211 AIDEWS is an integrated EW system with DRFM capability. The AN/ALQ-211 has a cooperative engagement capability with the AN/ALE-50 towed decoy system which automatically works out which system will engage based on the nature of the threat. I don't believe Chinese ECM systems have decoy deployment capabilities.
. .
In summary, the PL-15 range capability will likely than not be a non event because likely BVR engagements will be in the 100 KM zone due to sensor capability and ECM in play. Given the F-16V advantages outlined above, it will more than likely have the first detect and first shot advantage whether against J-11, J-16 or J-10B/C.
 

Top