Taiwan Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

Gloire_bb said:

That's a bold statement.

-Taiwan has a well-established and maintained dispersion capability; country isn't big, but this is no Kuwait either. Geography is favourable as well.
-RoC has quite dense air defence network, with significant(theoretical) ABM and point defence capability. F-16Vs themselves are an important part of LACM intercept capability, since this is sort of "speciality" of this particular model of fighter.
-Force in question(above 3 hundreed fighters) is very significant. Unless they understand sonething very wrongly, it is numerically unlikely for them to invest so much(compare their tactical fighter strength with european air forces!) in capability they do not expect to be able to use.

Click to expand...

They can't disperse their fighters to anywhere except airports; these aren't vertical take-off. When I last checked, China had over 1,600 missiles covering all of their airbases. LACM intercept requires the F-16 be in the air first and the whole point is that the LACM will arrive before the F-16 can even use its runway. Even then, the number game is hugely in China's favor. Let's say some do get up in the air somehow. China's HQ-9 SAM covers 200km, the whole distance across the straight so PLAAF fighters can fly through to shoot at ROCAF fighters (while maintaining a safe distance with PL-15) but they cannot chase back lest they enter Chinese SAM range. And that's just domestic options only. China's purchased S400 SAM covers the entirely of Taiwan island with a 400km range so anything non-stealth and in the air, especially carrying missiles is liable to be shot at as soon as its airborne.

ROC can buy lots of fighters; what else can they do? They want to waste money and show US support and the US is complaining they don't spend enough on defense. ROC's defense minister and air force chief of staff both couldn't identify a J-20 when shown a picture of it so I wouldn't use their competence as evidence of effectiveness. (Quite frankly it says they've given up and are just throwing money at the US for "protection.") Plus, there are plenty of cases in history when the military invested in something that was not effective in battle so one certainly could not point to a large number of fighters as proof that they would be effective also because that's circular logic.

Brumby said:

In a way what you described is superfluous to the V upgrade because those overall considerations are independent to whether Taiwan did or did not undergo the F-16 upgrade. That said, the improved capability does bring to Taiwan additional deterrent capability and impose more complex calculus onto the Chinese planners. It will more likely than not allow Taiwan to be in the game longer and provide more time for the US to mobilise and to respond. Without air domination, China is unlikely to risk invasion.

Click to expand...

No one disputes that the F-16Vs are better than what the ROCAF had before, and whatever weapons or capabilities the PLA have certainly don't change the fact that the F-16Vs are better than what the ROCAF had. In that sense, you could argue those factors are "superfluous".

But if one is interested in considering how much additional relative capability the F-16V upgrade may be for the ROCAF in the overall context of the cross-strait airpower balance against the PLA, I think the factors which I described certainly are not superfluous.

There are two things that I don't really get it based on your description on the use of AEW&C in providing targeting solution.
(1)They would probably be subject to similar risk as their intended target unless they are placed well behind area of operation. Have you done the maths that this could actually work - like detection range and range resolution?
(2)Data linking requires robust network with nil latency. Is China there yet? I don't think the USAF even has this type of CEC capability. The USN has made further progress than the rest of the other services. A link 16 type of datalink will not work for cooperative guidance because of latency.

Click to expand...

Within the F-35 community, cooperative engagement could be executed because of MADL. Between the F-18, Aegis and E2D it is because of NIFC-CA and the TTNT waveform. It requires big data pipes and building those is heavy investment. It is not by way of Link 16.

Click to expand...

See above.

manqiangrexue said:

They can't disperse their fighters to anywhere except airports; these aren't vertical take-off. When I last checked, China had over 1,600 missiles covering all of their airbases. LACM intercept requires the F-16 be in the air first and the whole point is that the LACM will arrive before the F-16 can even use its runway. Even then, the number game is hugely in China's favor. Let's say some do get up in the air somehow. China's HQ-9 SAM covers 200km, the whole distance across the straight so PLAAF fighters can fly through to shoot at ROCAF fighters (while maintaining a safe distance with PL-15) but they cannot chase back lest they enter Chinese SAM range. And that's just domestic options only. China's purchased S400 SAM covers the entirely of Taiwan island with a 400km range so anything non-stealth and in the air, especially carrying missiles is liable to be shot at as soon as its airborne.

Click to expand...

Just a correction, in a Taiwan contingency I think it is the SRBMs (not LACMs) which will be most relevant for the initial waves of strikes to cripple ROCAF air bases (among other key ROC military centers), alongside various GLCMs and ALCMs supported of course by airborne EW/ECM.

The speed of LACMs theoretically could be slow enough for air bases to sortie some of their aircraft if detected early enough, whereas the speed of SRBMs is much faster and provides much less early warning time.

Bltizo said:

Just a correction, in a Taiwan contingency I think it is the SRBMs (not LACMs) which will be most relevant for the initial waves of strikes to cripple ROCAF air bases (among other key ROC military centers), alongside various GLCMs and ALCMs supported of course by airborne EW/ECM.

The speed of LACMs theoretically could be slow enough for air bases to sortie some of their aircraft if detected early enough, whereas the speed of SRBMs is much faster and provides much less early warning time.

Click to expand...

Yes, LACM is subsonic but the distance is so short across the straight, I don't think any jets could have time to react meaningfully unless, of course a LACM were launched from 1000km away, which the CJ-10 is very capable of doing.

But yes, thanks for the correction; SRBMs are more useful to the start of the conflict to ensure a swift advantage. LACMs can follow.

Taiwan has integrated air defense systems, and its been reported that around their mountain airbases they have been looking to install point defenses for anti cruise missile and drone roles.

TerraN_EmpirE said:

Taiwan has integrated air defense systems, and its been reported that around their mountain airbases they have been looking to install point defenses for anti cruise missile and drone roles.

Click to expand...

All a numbers game. ROC has small air defenses; PRC has huge missile force.

It would still buy them time to get fighters airborne.
Also Unloading the entire missile stockpiles of the PRC on Taiwan isn’t going to help make it appear to be anything like peaceful reunification. It would make China a pariah of the international community. Solidify resistance and likely cause mass collateral damage.

manqiangrexue said:

All a numbers game. ROC has small air defenses; PRC has huge missile force.

Click to expand...

Another concept to keep in mind is one of non-graceful degradation.

IADS and ABM typically rely on a combination of sensors and shooters and command elements working together, however the destruction of certain key elements of the IADS/ABM (such as early warning radars, fixed radar sites, command/control authorities etc) can result in disproportionate adverse effect on the overall combat capability of the rest of the system of systems. It doesn't help that the ROCAF's SAM systems are Patriot inspired in terms of configuration and aren't attached to the same TEL vehicle permanently making it more difficult to shoot and scoot.

manqiangrexue said:

Please don't say things when you don't know what's going on; the AL-31 original design is old but it has been continuously updated. There are new AL-31 versions in the works even now and none of them are comparable to 30 year old American engines that give out less than 110kN. Even America's most updated 4.5 gen engines today are behind the updated AL-31 versions some of which can produce over 145kN of thrust. Only America's 5th gen engines are more powerful. The lowest possible estimate for the AL-31 version on the J-20 is 137kN because those are known to be sold to China for its advanced J-10 versions. If China bartered for a more powerful variant for its J-20, which is highly plausible, they would be even more powerful than those. Finally, whether or not the performance matches up is going to depend on a lot more than engine power; Dr. Song designed J-20 to perform to under-powered engines if necessary and so far, all accounts in the PLAAF have J-20 flying better than the Flankers and J-10 which are both known to be incredibly maneuverable 4-4.5 gen fighters.

Click to expand...

You accuse me of being uninformed yet you can't seem to get you basic facts right. The F100-PW-229 has been flown since 1989 and with reheat produces 130kN of thrust. Not to speak of reliability and fuel efficiency. Look up F100-PW-229 EEP.

Materials on the J-20 are unknown and there are no reliable studies on it including that of Kopp.

Click to expand...

Just like on any other stealth aircraft. People none the less make educated comparisons. But actually quantifying RCS may not be reliably done. Yet, it's quite obvious to everyone that the J-20 all aspect stealth is inferior to the F-22. It's in the frontal aspect that it might be competitive. But the larger radar antenna does not help in that regard. And then there is the question of the canopy RCS.

You came here to discuss J-20 vs F-22 and you didn't even know that J-20 has been using a tinted canopy for years? Please don't do this LOL

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

Yes, I was aware of that ever since 2017 was first seen. However, you can see the exact same tint on modern airliners. I doubt it's anywhere near as effective as those found on the F-22 and F-35.

Well, there's late-comer's advantage for China. Building something 20 years later with more technology and knowledge available provides many advantages, with the on-board computer systems being the most obvious.

Click to expand...

How's that latecomer advantage working out for COMAC? Once they finally debug the C919 they will have a jet that's a good 15 years behind the competition and that's with most of the critical systems supplied by US or EU companies.

TerraN_EmpirE said:

It would still buy them time to get fighters airborne.

Click to expand...

Not against ballistic missiles. LACMs, unless very close to the ROC, are not going to be used until key air defense assets are down. And even in that case, what would a few F-16s in the air do? Wait to get killed by S400/HQ-9 as they are hunted by PLAAF jets with PL-15?

TerraN_EmpirE said:

Also Unloading the entire missile stockpiles of the PRC on Taiwan isn’t going to help make it appear to be anything like peaceful reunification. It would make China a pariah of the international community. Solidify resistance and likely cause mass collateral damage.

Click to expand...

Clearly, if missiles are flying, the peace has broken down and the PRC was forced to fight because peaceful reunion, the number 1 choice, is being taken off the table. At that point, it's sovereignty above all. I acknowledged the damage that would cause to China's international image but pariah? That would depend on on the US/Taipei pushed China to fight. At the end of the day, China always said this would happen if pushed so the world knows it's just making good on a promise.