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.
.
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.
