Taiwan Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

manqiangrexue said:

Well, that doesn't surprise me, coming from a guy who could not read the English that RAND only gives the ROCAF 2-4 weeks if the PLA refrained from using a saturation missile attack at the opening of hostilities and then continued to reinforce his incorrect reading, never admitting even the most obvious mistake.

Click to expand...

Dude. That ends all conversation with you.

manqiangrexue said:

Interesting. Please give your information with link. I hope it's relatively reliable because I have also found some random numbers on forums that are obviously not trustworthy.

I'm not going to try to find missile RCS and do calculations; there is also pylon to worry about, and the angles between the missile, pylon, and wing, etc... The math is not going to be easy and not going to be accurate done by people who aren't professionally trained. I was looking for a statement from a reliable source, like, "With 4 missiles, RCS is XXX."

Click to expand...

I would hope these numbers are averages over a particular hemisphere. But they could be constrained to much smaller angles. My point is, when viewed head on an AAM loadout will not dramatically impact the RCS of non VLO aircraft. Yes, it will go up, but it was already big to begin with.

The numbers I have come from CMANO. These are typically as good as it gets in terms of publically available data. I will look them up.

the bottom line is the easiest way for Continental China to achieve a victory is through Taiwainese unification-movements (but now I would veer into politics, which I won't)

Brumby said:

Every known modern 4.5 gen airplane out there has a RCS of between 0.5 to 1 m2.

Click to expand...

I just re-examined this quote from you in #3151. What, are you addicting to being wrong? You just showed that 4.5 gen Flankers have an RCS of 4-5m^2. Why do you do this to yourself?

Brumby said:

Dude. That ends all conversation with you.

Click to expand...

LOL You sure that's what ended it? Not because you keep being wrong and embarrassing yourself all the time? Or because I don't take empty assumptions as probably true because you said so? I only pointed out exactly what you did, which is misread basic English and then double down on your error when it was pointed out.

From CMANO db:
J-10B frontal RCS in X-band: 0.76m2
F-16V frontal RCS in X-band: 1.6m2

J-10B radar: PESA with 80nm range (early 2000s generation)
F-16V radar: AESA with 160nm range (early 2010s generation) Link:

1v1, I would guess the F-16V might have an edge due to the vastly superior radar. But I would have to test it out with the typical loadouts.

PL-15 RCS: 0.046m2
AIM-120D RCS: 0.04m2

Max Demian said:

From CMANO db:
J-10B frontal RCS in X-band: 0.76m2
F-16V frontal RCS in X-band: 1.6m2

J-10B radar: PESA with 80nm range (early 2000s generation)
F-16V radar: AESA with 160nm range (early 2010s generation) Link:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

1v1, I would guess the F-16V might have an edge due to the vastly superior radar. But I would have to test it out with the typical loadouts.

Click to expand...

As much as I would love to believe that the J-10B has an RCS that is less than half that of the F-16V, I really do not think this is a reliable source at all. For one, you provided a very questionable little pdf that had radar range listed twice for no reason.

Then, when I went to the main site and searched for J-10C, it gave me this:

LOL That's right, a picture of a J-16 labelled "J-10C." So... aside from the fact that it would be crazy to get the classified J-10 data off of a non-Chinese communication, this site you are using looks very lazy.

Very much appreciate the effort, though.

manqiangrexue said:

As much as I would love to believe that the J-10B has an RCS that is less than half that of the F-16V, I really do not think this is a reliable source at all. For one, you provided a very questionable little pdf that had radar range listed twice for no reason.

Click to expand...

Yeah, the web version does look a bit sloppy. But the numbers I gave you are from an in-simulator database. These are updated a few times a year and usually keep up with the latest-and-greatest in the militaries worldwide.

As for the J-10B. It does have some RCS reduction schemes like a DSI and tinted canopy.

However, the USAF F-16s do have their own RCS reduction scheme codenamed "Have Glass" which puts them quite a bit ahead of the J-10B.

LOL That's right, a picture of a J-16 labelled "J-10C."

Click to expand...

I think photos are among the top complaints users have. However, that doesn't distract from the fact that the simulator is pretty awesome. And the designers are open to input from the community.

Max Demian said:

But when would the decoy be deployed? Even before being attacked? Assuming the latter, can a fighter radar discriminate between a plane and a decoy at long range or does he instead see one blip? I suspect the decoy becomes noticable only at missile homing range.

Click to expand...

That is not very hard at all. It won't appear as a single blip due to X-band having a high resolution. This isn't like you're using VHF radar or something. Radar does a good job of picking apart something moving faster than the background, and the faster they go, the better they get picked apart. This is when Doppler comes in. The decoy needs to move as fast as the fighter, but that is unsustainable.

Max Demian said:

Yeah, the web version does look a bit sloppy. But the numbers I gave you are from an in-simulator database. These are updated a few times a year and usually keep up with the latest-and-greatest in the militaries worldwide.

As for the J-10B. It does have some RCS reduction schemes like a DSI and tinted canopy.

However, the USAF F-16s do have their own RCS reduction scheme codenamed "Have Glass" which puts them quite a bit ahead of the J-10B.


I think photos are among the top complaints users have. However, that doesn't distract from the fact that the simulator is pretty awesome. And the designers are open to input from the community.

Click to expand...

All their claims for very classified stuff are incredibly specific, like missile range: 174.1 km for a classified missile. And some of their data is extremely wrong, like they claim that the F-22 is 14,365kg (14.365 tonnes) empty when it's generally known to be 19.7 tonnes.

They also have this: J-16 Flying Shark [Su-27UBK copy] whatever the hell that is...

I really can't take this site seriously.

On a separate note, yes, J-10B and C have some stealth measures and it would not surprise me at all if they had lower RCS than F-16 any version, though we don't have that data so I would not claim it.

manqiangrexue said:

I think the fighter sees 2 blips, both looking like fighters. So he should lock his missile onto the blip in the front instead of setting the missile to chase whichever signal is stronger as it gets close because decoy signals are made to be very loud and attractive. If he sees one blip (maybe because the decoy has an RCS greater than the jet, causing it to be the on that shows), then the missile should be programmed to change its target to a smaller blip in front of the original large blip if one shows up when it gets closer.

This is just me throwing ideas for fun. I'm not an ECM expert.

Click to expand...

This can be done if the ARH missile is still in early and middle stages of the flight. But in its final phase, the ARH missile is autonomous and is on its own computing mind. If you are still using a SARH missile, a type of AAM that is increasingly rare these days, the fighter needs its radar to illuminating at the target, and so you can do this right to the very termination of the missile. But because of these "minding" of the target, the fighter can't be fire and forget, which can leave it vulnerable.

In any case, the fighter should not be launching its decoy too early, and your RWR or EW suite should be able to tell you if its the enemy fighter's radar scanning you or if the missile's radar is homing on you. The waveform for each would be different. If its the missile's radar that is homing on you, which means its autonomous, that's when you release the decoy. But if the targeted fighter has a larger and stronger radar return than the decoy, the decoy may not work.