In any modern air battle (including BVR) between contemporary air forces it is about how the system of systems play out. Fighter vs fighter comparisons at the individual plane or even flight formation level are useful for thought experiments but not likely too relevant for complex air campaigns.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 an antenna gain advantage The DSP is the filter which gives the APG-83 a receiving 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.
View attachment 52680
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.
Not only are we looking at sortie generation rate (number of air bases or secondary air strips and ability of those facilities to generate sorties in light of opfor offensive counter air), but also the force multipliers each side can get up into the air including AEW&C, standoff jammers and tactical jammers. Those factors obviously apply for not only BVR engagements but all A2A engagements overall.