Chinese Air Power analysis - Justin Bronk

Discuss air warfare, doctrine, air forces, historic campaigns, etc.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4454
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post05 Oct 2022, 12:50

milosh wrote:From west beaches and ports to hilly-mountain part of Taiwan you have at least 50km of quite flat ground so without +50km Hellfire or something similar you can't stop landing using helos in fact rocket artillery is much bigger problem then helos.


"Coincidently" close to those "west beaches and ports" is where the biggest urban areas of Taiwan are located at. As such, are you aware that helicopters can use buildings and other man-made structures as cover? And there are lots of these (buildings and other man-made structures) near the "west beaches and ports" that you talk about!


milosh wrote:F-16V don't have any noticable advantage over PLAAF non stealth advanced chinese fighters, for example J-10B and J-10C and were design from start with AESA in mind, but J-10B/C and do have noticable advantage over F-16V, RAM coatings and PL-15.


LoL :doh:
J-10B/C are so good, specially their radars that the Chinese still feel the need to use Russian Su-35's. And we all know how these Su-35's have been performing in Ukraine, haven't we??

It's unlikely that the J-10's radar is anywhere as good as the F-16V's APG-83 radar. If the J-10 was this good including its radar then it would have been exported to several countries (which don't have such good relations with the west) by now and the J-10 was exported to how many countries?? Answer: Only ONE (1), Pakistan. The same country that still operates and wants to continue to operate the F-16!
If the J-10 was nearly as good as you claim then you could bet that Pakistan would have already replaced their F-16's by those "magical" Chinese J-10's by now.

Moreover, it's unlikely that the J-10 has a considerably good combat range which should be considerably shorter than for example the F-16.
This limits the time which a J-10 can operate close to Taiwan.


milosh wrote:For E-2 to be effective it need to fly high do you really think something like that can survive opening phase of war? I mean heavy Chinese fighters (Flankers) are seen to carry PL-21 which range against such target is BIG.


Taiwanese E-2's just need to fly high enough to cover the overwater space between Taiwan and mainland China - There's no hills, mountains and large man-made structures between mainland China and Taiwan which is all "flat". This could be as flying as high as the highest mountains of Taiwan and they (E-2's) can use the same mountains for cover if threatened.
As opposed it's the Chinese AWACS that really need to fly very high in order to have a minimally decent cover of most Taiwan island and even so such cover would still be somehow limited (due to the ruggedness of Taiwan's terrain).
Last edited by ricnunes on 05 Oct 2022, 12:57, edited 1 time in total.
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
Offline

hornetfinn

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4269
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2013, 08:31
  • Location: Finland

Unread post05 Oct 2022, 12:57

milosh wrote:
hornetfinn wrote:They'd be flying inside Taiwanese airspace defended by advanced SAMs and F-16Vs with advanced AESA radars and AMRAAMs. Taiwanese terrain is also rather rugged and complex, which would make finding these helos rather difficult task, let alone shooting them down.


From west beaches and ports to hilly-mountain part of Taiwan you have at least 50km of quite flat ground so without +50km Hellfire or something similar you can't stop landing using helos in fact rocket artillery is much bigger problem then helos.


It's flat but very much populated which means a lot of buildings, roads, traffic and other stuff that makes it easier to hide from enemy sensors, especially from further away (to stay out of range of Taiwanese SAMs and other defences). Detecting and shooting down helos is not that easy and Apaches would cover that distance in a short time if invasion fleet got to beaches.

milosh wrote:F-16V don't have any noticable advantage over PLAAF non stealth advanced chinese fighters, for example J-10B and J-10C and were design from start with AESA in mind, but J-10B/C and do have noticable advantage over F-16V, RAM coatings and PL-15.


Maybe or maybe not. Even if they were equal or even inferior, their most noticeable advantage comes from the fact that they'd be operating within their SAM coverage and near their own bases defending and not attacking. RAM coatings don't make J-10B/C a stealth aircraft and I'm not convinced that PL-15 is actually superior to later AMRAAM models. I'd also bet that US AESA radars are superior to Chinese ones due to US electronics industry being far more advanced and a lot bigger than Chinese one.

milosh wrote:
You seem to think that Taiwanese hundreds of F-16Vs, F-CK-1 and Mirage 2000-5 supported by E-2s and advanced and concentrated ground based air defences being an easy for China to shoot down? I'd say that China better be prepared for serious losses.


For E-2 to be effective it need to fly high do you really think something like that can survive opening phase of war? I mean heavy Chinese fighters (Flankers) are seen to carry PL-21 which range against such target is BIG.


Yes, such wunderwaffe makes it easy to shoot down E-2s as there is nothing that can be done to counter that threat... :roll: Of course those E-2s would be high-value targets but they'd also be protected by said Patriots, Sky Bows, ship based defences, F-16Vs and other assets. It would not be easy to get within firing envelope and guide the missile towards the target to successfully engage it. It's certainly a considerable threat but also difficult task for the Chinese to succeed in.
Offline

milosh

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1935
  • Joined: 27 Feb 2008, 23:40
  • Location: Serbia, Belgrade

Unread post05 Oct 2022, 14:02

ricnunes wrote:LoL :doh:
J-10B/C are so good, specially their radars that the Chinese still feel the need to use Russian Su-35's. And we all know how these Su-35's have been performing in Ukraine, haven't we??


Lol they didn't bought Su-35 becuase of radar. They mass produced AESA fighter radars for long.

ricnunes wrote:It's unlikely that the J-10's radar is anywhere as good as the F-16V's APG-83 radar. If the J-10 was this good including its radar then it would have been exported to several countries (which don't have such good relations with the west) by now and the J-10 was exported to how many countries?? Answer: Only ONE (1), Pakistan. The same country that still operates and wants to continue to operate the F-16!


Export of J-10 only started now and there aren't many countries which can buy Chinese fighters, I aleady explain why China can't enter in Flanker market (when folks start talking how China will stole Russian market) reason is politics, most of buyers of Flankers aren't friendly with China.


If the J-10 was nearly as good as you claim then you could bet that Pakistan would have already replaced their F-16's by those "magical" Chinese J-10's by now.


I think it would be stupid to retire new F-16 bl52 Pakistan got for free from US just because they know got J-10C.

Moreover, it's unlikely that the J-10 has a considerably good combat range which should be considerably shorter than for example the F-16.
This limits the time which a J-10 can operate close to Taiwan.


Based on what you think J-10 lack range compared to F-16? Last time I checked J-10 is delta wing design and you know delta wings can carry nice amount of fuel.

IAI Lavi on which J-10 is based (J-10 is scaled up Lavi) carry almost similar amount of fuel as early F-16.

J-10A and Lavi size comparison:
https://preview.redd.it/4hun6a0h0ca41.j ... 07dc42dac5

Taiwanese E-2's just need to fly high enough to cover the overwater space between Taiwan and mainland China - There's no hills, mountains and large man-made structures between mainland China and Taiwan which is all "flat". This could be as flying as high as the highest mountains of Taiwan and they (E-2's) can use the same mountains for cover if threatened.
As opposed it's the Chinese AWACS that really need to fly very high in order to have a minimally decent cover of most Taiwan island and even so such cover would still be somehow limited (due to the ruggedness of Taiwan's terrain).


I mean it is hilarious anyone can believe E-2 which have huge RCS, is slow can last long in war with power which have more then 100 stealthy J-20 with PL-15 (200km against E-2 like target) or hundreds of Flankers with PL-21 (+300km range against E-2 like targets).

For E-2 to have any chance is to have massive protection of F-16 which would fly further from island and be easy pray for even non stealths because PL-15 have better range and seeker then AIM-120.

Btw most of Taiwanese F-16V will be upgraded older block F-16 with SABR radar which use same cooling as for old radar and same electric power installation so we are not talking about some superb AESA radar and I am pretty sure J-10 AESA are better then that radar:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vOwKKV-i-bg

New build F-16V could be different story but I still need to read do they get different SABR radar then one used for older F-16 upgrade.

Reason why China don't upgrade realitive new J-10A with AESA from B and C is cost, it doesn't have required cooling and power needed for much more powerful AESA radar then MESA radar it have.
Online

viperzerof-2

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 269
  • Joined: 15 May 2011, 18:54

Unread post05 Oct 2022, 17:15

Going by public data J-10C AESA isn’t likely in a vastly different class then APG-83 estimates we have scene.
Attachments
DA5BC629-92E2-44C5-9DDF-703BD318D866.jpeg
Offline

jessmo112

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1030
  • Joined: 16 Mar 2020, 02:09

Unread post05 Oct 2022, 21:30

The thing is that Stealthy F-35s and F-22s extend the range of E-2 considerably. It's likely that such a high value asset will have fighters between the E-2 and the Chinese Long range missiles. I think that the Chinese should be more concerned about defending Chines air space than chasing E-2s hundreds of miles out to sea, and falling into fighter traps. Let's not forget that the Chinese must defend against. B-2, f-22, F-35, B-52 launched CM, B-1,Tlam, Ohio launched Tlam, RQ-170, Army, land based, missiles, from multiple countries and multiple vectors.
The U.S. and allies here are the bullies, not China. The Americans and allies out number the Chinese in stealth fighters 3:1 It's more likely that J-20s J-10s ect will be killed on the ground or mission killed by runway craters than survive to harass E-2s far put. These fantasy thought experiments with Chinese long range missiles keeping the U.S. at bay permanently is exactly that. Fantasy.
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4454
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post05 Oct 2022, 23:15

milosh wrote:Lol they didn't bought Su-35 becuase of radar. They mass produced AESA fighter radars for long.


They bought the Su-35 because of the whole package, INCLUDING THE RADAR which is one of the most important parts of a modern fighter aircraft.
The Chinese didn't buy the Su-35 and put one of their radars in it, did they?? :roll:

So and resuming, the Chinese bought the Su-35 also because of its radar (again the whole package).


milosh wrote:Export of J-10 only started now and there aren't many countries which can buy Chinese fighters, I aleady explain why China can't enter in Flanker market (when folks start talking how China will stole Russian market) reason is politics, most of buyers of Flankers aren't friendly with China.


LoL :doh:
Let's look at some of the Flanker family and Mig-29 and thus buyers of Russian fighter aircraft which have somehow good relations with China:
- Angola
- Ethiopia
- Eritrea
- Kazakhstan
- Uzbekistan
- Myanmar
- Uganda
- Venezuela
- Egypt
- Algeria
- Azerbaijan
- Cuba
- Iran
- North Korea
- Peru
- Sudan
- last but not the least, your Serbia!

... and the list doesn't end here!
So as you can see, lots of potential customers which traditionally bought or buys Russian fighter aircraft which have close political ties with China and thus wouldn't mind to buy Chinese fighter aircraft if they see it fit.


milosh wrote:Based on what you think J-10 lack range compared to F-16? Last time I checked J-10 is delta wing design and you know delta wings can carry nice amount of fuel.

IAI Lavi on which J-10 is based (J-10 is scaled up Lavi) carry almost similar amount of fuel as early F-16.

J-10A and Lavi size comparison:
https://preview.redd.it/4hun6a0h0ca41.j ... 07dc42dac5


No, the IAI Lavi doesn't have "almost the same fuel" as the F-16. The IAI Lavi carried 2700kg of internal fuel while the F-16 carries 3200kg (internal fuel).

After checking twice, I noticed that the J-10 is actually a bit bigger and quite heavier (empty weight) than the F-16 and that's why it carries more internal fuel than the F-16 (3800kg versus 3200kg). However the J-10 is quite heavier in terms of empty weight than the F-16 (9750kg versus 8570kg) or more precisely the J-10 is 1180 kg (more than 1 ton) heavier than the F-16!
On top of this the J-10 engine is most likely less efficient than the F-16 engine which means that together with the J-10 being heavier it will also and likely have a considerably higher fuel consumption (than the F-16).

All of this means that the J-10 won't likely have a bigger range than the F-16.


milosh wrote:I mean it is hilarious anyone can believe E-2 which have huge RCS, is slow can last long in war with power which have more then 100 stealthy J-20 with PL-15 (200km against E-2 like target) or hundreds of Flankers with PL-21 (+300km range against E-2 like targets).

For E-2 to have any chance is to have massive protection of F-16 which would fly further from island and be easy pray for even non stealths because PL-15 have better range and seeker then AIM-120.


Hilarious is to think that the Taiwanese cannot develop tactics to better use their E-2's while at the same time avoiding incoming Chinese fighter aircraft specially considering that the J-20 is not as stealthy as US F-35 and F-22 fighter aircraft and thus the J-20 can be detected farther away than what a F-35 or F-22 would (although it would only be detected at closer distances than Su-35s and J-10s).
What's also hilarious is that after the example that I mentioned that E-2s could fly close to Taiwanese mountain ranges and thus use these same mountains as cover if threatened you think or believe that PL-15's fired from afar would "make the cut" and for odd reason fly thru mountains covering the E-2 (and hit the covered E-2).



milosh wrote:Btw most of Taiwanese F-16V will be upgraded older block F-16 with SABR radar which use same cooling as for old radar and same electric power installation so we are not talking about some superb AESA radar and I am pretty sure J-10 AESA are better then that radar:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vOwKKV-i-bg

New build F-16V could be different story but I still need to read do they get different SABR radar then one used for older F-16 upgrade.

Reason why China don't upgrade realitive new J-10A with AESA from B and C is cost, it doesn't have required cooling and power needed for much more powerful AESA radar then MESA radar it have.


Even the APG-83 SABR AESA radars using the same cooling as for older MSA radars would still be superior to Chinese AESA radars, specially similar sized Chinese AESA radars like the one fitted in the J-10.
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
Offline

tphuang

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 241
  • Joined: 13 Aug 2018, 02:42

Unread post06 Oct 2022, 00:48

Corsair1963 wrote:
tphuang wrote:
I think you should read through this. This is if they do intend to go kinetic against Taiwan. There won't be any advanced warning or major landing force build up. They will first complete exhaust ROC military. Everything will start off as a blockade. They will only land when ROC military is ready to put up the white flag.
https://rentry.co/tw-human-material-state
The a million man across straits theory is such a stupid analysis of how China would approach this conflict.

I don't think they will actually even need to go kinetic against Taiwan. they have the world's large cutter fleet and a whole bunch of 056s. They import close to 100% of their hydrocarbons and are only 70% self sufficient in food. Taiwan has enough natural gas to last 7 days. China can just stop crude carriers and LNGS from reaching the main Taiwanese ports. https://www.wsj.com/articles/china-is-c ... 1663585457

China's goal is to prevent Taiwan from declaring independence and to prevent Western countries from having a 2-China policy. As long as it can prevent that, it won't go kinetic.

Blockading China is really hard. I will just leave it as that.


Sounds good in theory but that's about it. Just do a little history on the US Island Hopping Campaign during WWII. The Allies assaulted island after island on a scale China couldn't even match today. (i.e. Non-Nuclear) Yet, the overall results were nothing short of disappointing. While, the following land invasions suffered very high casualties rates.

Nor, can't China hope to maintain a blockage around Taiwan until they capitulate! On the other hand China has only very limited access to the open blue waters. Which, the US and her Allies would cut off quickly....along with the SLOC that supply China with the vast majority of both imports and exports. Which, would make short work of her economy and limit the re-supply of her armies.

This idea China can just bombard Taiwan into submission is more "folly" than fact. Nazi Germany only fell after the Allied Armies came knocking on Berlin. While, Japan succumb only after two Atomic (Nuclear) Bombs and a Russian Invasion of China!


Believe it or not, that's actually the most likely scenario based on people in DoD that runs through these scenarios. You are not going to see US military come to Taiwan's rescue with just 1 carrier group. That's suicidal. So, US navy would need to work up 4 carrier groups. You can do your own look into how many carriers are not out on a rotation and can be surged in 30 days. But I've been assured 3 or 4 is the likely number given the availability of replenishment ships. And in order to work up that many carriers for such a high risk mission, they'd likely have to go through additional training in Pearl. In most likelihood, US navy will need up to 2 months to be able to come to Taiwan's rescue.

there is just no way Taiwan can hold on for that long without oil, electricity and Internet.

The idea of cutting off China's SLOC was very attractive back in 2012, but not so likely now. There are 3 reasons for this:

1) there is the very real problem of where the ship is heading. How do you know a ore carrier or oil tanker or LNG is headed to China and not to Japan/Korea or Thailand of Philippines? If you are able to choke off China's SLOC, you will choke off every country in the region

2) China is probably the most adapt at handling getting cut off SLOC. It can get at least 55% of its current oil need from domestic production, Russia import + pipelines. It has very high EV adoption in public transit and passenger vehicle segments, can simply achieve its needs by just not allow gas cars to drive around and not allow civilian flights. It probably wouldn't even need to dig into SPR to meet its other needs. With the new POS pipelines and Central asian gas pipelines, it can get all of its NG needs without LNG carriers at all. It has a lot of coal plants that sit around idle that can be reopened if necessary. Aside form that, it has rail based transport for trades with ASEAN countries and Central Asia. That allows them to continue getting most of the necessary natural resources. The only resource its really missing would be iron ore, but even that, they are able to get 60% of their current needs from domestic production/Russia/Central Asian countries and recycling scraps.

3) The task of cutting off Chinese SLOC is also not easy, because you need a lot of ships to do it. You can't recently send coast guard ships out there, because China will just sink them. Diego Garcia and Darwin would likely be targeted which early on. So with the need to have 4 carriers in west pacific, it is a good question of how many Burkes US navy can spare operating in Indian Ocean to intercept cargo ships. You would probably need to board cargo ships to stop them from headed to Asia. They will also likely be facing H-6K attacks while out there, since any Chinese cargo ships would be able to alert PLA that there is a us naval ship near by. There are probably 70 Burkes in total and good number of them will be unavailable at any given time and another 20 will probably be needed to escort a large westpac strike group. If you are the US military, do you have another 10 to 15 burkes to be stationed in Indian Ocean for the possibility that you might be able to board and stop some cargo ships from reaching China?

Based on the above, it is actually very hard for US navy to actually effectively blockade China.

On the flip side, the current geography actually really favors China in blockading pretty much everyone else. China basically would control SCS and East China Sea and Western part of Philippine Sea. This would allow them to blockade LNGs/crude carriers to not only Taiwan, but also Japan, SK and most of ASEAN countries.

I've heard SCS being described as a mine field because PLA has installed so many sensors in there and have so many surface combatants and submarines. Unlike US navy, China would have several hundred 056s and coast guard ships that can board ships headed to Japan and South Korea. As such, US navy may hope for help from these countries, but they'd may a very high price and may no be able to help America all that much. In any long term scenario, I would expect China to use its SCS control to pressure ASEAN countries to be on its side.
Offline

tphuang

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 241
  • Joined: 13 Aug 2018, 02:42

Unread post06 Oct 2022, 01:19

jessmo112 wrote:This Is what makes all of the talk of an easy blockade and and easy victory nonsense.
The USA has 3 or 4 moves.

1. Flood the area with a wolf pack of SSNs engage the destroyers with long range TLAMs and harpoons.

2. If troops are boarding have Ohios launch about 400 TLAMS at the depots docks and assembly areas.

3. If they are not docked saturate the SAGs from 509 moles away.

4. Have F-35Bs launching from FOBs or a tanker basket 500 miles from where the subs are operating. Every few hours fighters rotate in and out. Any ASW platform gets killed.

Keep in mind that the closest Japanese island is 70 miles away from Taiwan. Drawing Japan into the fight is inevitable And the Combined fleet of Jaoan and the U S. Is a problem.

On the ASW front, I forgot to mention to you that China has probably the largest fleet of ships with both VDS and TAS. about 50+ 056As, 30+ 052Ds, 6 052Cs, 8 055s and 25 054As have them. This is on top of the SURTASS ships, SOSUS, AUVs, submarines and gliders they have in the region. Again, a lot of this stuff was built up in the last 5 years, so people that wrote some of these submarine related articles probably aren't aware of how hard it is to actually penetrate these areas. On top of all the sensors, the submarines will also have to deal with large convoy of commercial ships around military ships. Given that torpedoes are really effective when you get to about 5nm from the target, having convoys in between is another headache for submarine captains.

The last part you mentioned is kind of interesting. The current analysis is that China will be able to take out not only Taiwan's air defense, but also all of major US/JSDF bases in Japan and Guam with initial strikes. As I mentioned in the last post, Japan is likely to suffer a total collapse if it participates in a conflict, because China should be able to effectively blockade Japan in a war scenario.

The recent war game that PLA held around Taiwan was alarming to us military for a number of reasons. The most obvious one is that PLA can hold regular "war games" that start off as a large exercise, but become a real attack after a few days (and Taiwanese military is worn down). It would be very hard to tell between a war game and a real invasion. Without knowing that live shooting is about to start, US/Japanese naval assets would not be on the same level of alert.

PLA is probably capable of delivering over 1000 land based ballistic/cruise missiles against us/japanese bases within second island chain in an initial strike. That is enough to significantly degrade runways, command centers and air defense system for a few hours. During that time, PLAAF and PLAN is likely to launch secondary strikes to completely take out military bases, major power stations and certain critical infrastructure (especially in Guam, we can discuss more about this one if you are interested) that will basically make these bases inoperable for a while. Again, PLA would probably have to launch several thousand missiles + PGMs + stand off missiles + persistent drone attacks to keep bases in Japan and Taiwan offline.

In your scenario, there is only a few hundred tomahawk missiles available. A good number of them will get intercepted or disrupted by EW suite. There are so many targets in China and they repair things so fast. You just can't do enough damage to bases on the mainland with a few hundred cruise missiles.

And all of this assumes that all the Ohio SSGNs and Virginia SSNs are available, which they are not. Only a fraction of your nuclear subs are available at any given time. It takes them a few weeks to get to west pacific. After you launch the missiles, they have to go all the way back to Pearl to get reloaded before they can come. And that's assuming launching that many missiles do not get them exposed. I can assure you that launching tomahawk missiles gives away your position a lot more than launching torpedoes.

Here is an article on how many missiles are required to just take out China's militarized islands in Spratley.
https://warontherocks.com/2020/01/the-c ... sly-wrong/
A hundred cruise missiles per outpost would not be an unreasonable estimate to effectively disable the bases. That amounts to 300 missiles just for the major bases in the Spratlys, another 100 for Woody Island, and dozens more if the United States wanted to disable smaller facilities (for instance, the heliport on Duncan Island that would likely be used for anti-submarine warfare operations).

What platforms would launch these hundreds of cruise missiles? The only thing safely operating in the theater after hostilities started would be U.S. submarines. They would find it a lot harder to remain undetected in the face of active Chinese anti-submarine operations once they started shooting. Every launch would put them at some risk. And in that environment, U.S. subs would likely be busy attacking Chinese surface ships and other high-value platforms, not trying to blanket thousands of acres of infrastructure at Mischief or Subi Reefs with valuable ordnance with no guarantee of success. Anything else sent into the theater — long-range bombers from Guam, surface ships, etc. — would be operating at high risk given Chinese dominance of the sea and air space.
Offline

weasel1962

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2965
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore

Unread post06 Oct 2022, 01:22

and the Taiwanese are eliminating their nuclear power plants which isn't import reliant.
Offline

garrya

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1015
  • Joined: 25 Dec 2015, 12:43

Unread post06 Oct 2022, 04:07

ricnunes wrote:LoL :doh:
J-10B/C are so good, specially their radars that the Chinese still feel the need to use Russian Su-35's. And we all know how these Su-35's have been performing in Ukraine, haven't we??

It's unlikely that the J-10's radar is anywhere as good as the F-16V's APG-83 radar. If the J-10 was this good including its radar then it would have been exported to several countries (which don't have such good relations with the west) by now and the J-10 was exported to how many countries?? Answer: Only ONE (1), Pakistan. The same country that still operates and wants to continue to operate the F-16!
If the J-10 was nearly as good as you claim then you could bet that Pakistan would have already replaced their F-16's by those "magical" Chinese J-10's by now.

IMHO, Su-35 still has much bigger radar aperture compared to J-10, so it isn’t a surprise that Su-35S radar has far better detection range compared to J-10C. Nevertheless, as far as I know, China purchase Su-35S in very small quantity of only 24 aircraft, mainly because they want to reverse engineer the jet engine of Su-35. There are also report from China exersise (their own version of Red flag) that their J-15 and J-16 have better radar and infrared sensor compared to Su-35.

Regarding F-16V vs J-10C, personally, I believe that J-10C is superior, at least in BVR combat. Firstly, because the antenna on J-10C is tilted while F-16 antenna is perpendicular, so J-10 will have lower frontal RCS. Secondly, J-10C has internal IRST that can aid it in jamming condition, to improve detection range and resistance to angle jamming.
DF2B29B6-031B-49B1-A084-0EAE8864A7D5.jpeg

Moreover, Taiwan F-16V are just upgraded version of legacy F-16, they lack the additional cooling vents like on F-16E/F, when the cooling capacity is limited, the detection range of radar suffered
AE6830EE-F054-4C68-A897-0137DC10ED36.png
Offline

weasel1962

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2965
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore

Unread post06 Oct 2022, 08:41

Noted that the J-10Cs have been getting the golden helmet for the past 3 years (latest 131 brigade) against J-16s & Su-35s. May be the training rather than the plane itself but 131 just got the J-10Cs recently.
Offline

not_kent

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 79
  • Joined: 12 Aug 2021, 12:59

Unread post06 Oct 2022, 11:16

weasel1962 wrote:what's the range of those "manpads"?

Not sure you realize but tanks do shoot back.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a0nt7BJgljY

That's assuming those "manpads" survive the inevitable shore bombardments, supporting CAS etc. But certainly we can pretend none of these will happen and that the Chinese are clearly dumb.


Jan 14th - Taiwan adds minelaying ships to defenses against China, the automatic mine-laying system was developed by Taiwan’s Chung Shan Institute of Science and Technology. Taiwan has massive shore defenses so they don't have to defend the entire coastline and invaders will be funneled into a killing zone.

Ukraine manpads survived massive Russian bombardments and CAS.

At Omaha Beach on D-Day (WW II) Planes dropped 13,000 bombs before the landing: they completely missed their targets; intense naval bombardment still failed to destroy German emplacements. The result was, Omaha Beach became a horrific killing zone. Many Pacific islands were bombarded for days yet there were still defenders and gun emplacements left.
Offline

not_kent

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 79
  • Joined: 12 Aug 2021, 12:59

Unread post06 Oct 2022, 11:28

milosh wrote:Of course it is autoloader design. You hit any soviet carousal tank in turret and start fire inside turret, and that would get to charges inside autoloader and you have flying turret. There aren't blow out panels for carousel loader or better to say whole turret is blow out panel!

In case of Type 15 ammo is separated from crew as in all bustle type autoloaders and there are blow out panels.



Don't really get your point, there is still ammo stored in the turret, maybe the turret will not set new records for height but a hit to the turret is still a killed tank.

Due to the use of full-load ammunition, Type 15 light tank did not follow the turntable type loader on other Chinese battle tanks but instead used the tail cabin-type automatic loader to directly supply the bomb from the tail of the gun. This is the first time in the history of the development of tanks in China – all tanks previously developed, including the most advanced Type 99A2 main battle tanks, use a turntable automatic loader.
Offline

hornetfinn

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4269
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2013, 08:31
  • Location: Finland

Unread post06 Oct 2022, 12:36

tphuang wrote:PLA is probably capable of delivering over 1000 land based ballistic/cruise missiles against us/japanese bases within second island chain in an initial strike. That is enough to significantly degrade runways, command centers and air defense system for a few hours. During that time, PLAAF and PLAN is likely to launch secondary strikes to completely take out military bases, major power stations and certain critical infrastructure (especially in Guam, we can discuss more about this one if you are interested) that will basically make these bases inoperable for a while. Again, PLA would probably have to launch several thousand missiles + PGMs + stand off missiles + persistent drone attacks to keep bases in Japan and Taiwan offline.

In your scenario, there is only a few hundred tomahawk missiles available. A good number of them will get intercepted or disrupted by EW suite. There are so many targets in China and they repair things so fast. You just can't do enough damage to bases on the mainland with a few hundred cruise missiles.

And all of this assumes that all the Ohio SSGNs and Virginia SSNs are available, which they are not. Only a fraction of your nuclear subs are available at any given time. It takes them a few weeks to get to west pacific. After you launch the missiles, they have to go all the way back to Pearl to get reloaded before they can come. And that's assuming launching that many missiles do not get them exposed. I can assure you that launching tomahawk missiles gives away your position a lot more than launching torpedoes.


So China is going to launch this kind of attack without anyone noticing and preparing for it? Nobody has thought about how to defend against them and what can do to counter them? There are no way of moving assets around etc? How many missiles China can launch in a day? Japan alone has about 100 airports which could be used and Japan has quite a lot of highways which could also be used. It sounds like China is totally omnipotent without any limits to how many missiles and launchers it has and how many it can use at a time. It also sounds like Chinese missiles are so good that Patriots, THAAD, SM-6s, SM-3s, SM-2s, ESSMs, not mention air assets and EW can't touch them. Can they also forget about India and other directions and just lob everything they have against Taiwan, SK, Japan etc? Somehow I doubt that unless they are as dumb as Russia is.

There are many other weapons that could be thrown at the Chinese targets. TLAMs, JASSM(-ERs), LRASM, JSM, SLAM-ER, Wan Chien, Yun Feng and upgraded Type 12. Then weapons like JSOW and SDB could follow those. Yeah, some of those would be shot down but it's not like there is nothing that can hit back and hit rather hard.
Offline

weasel1962

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2965
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore

Unread post06 Oct 2022, 14:25

not_kent wrote:Jan 14th - Taiwan adds minelaying ships to defenses against China, the automatic mine-laying system was developed by Taiwan’s Chung Shan Institute of Science and Technology. Taiwan has massive shore defenses so they don't have to defend the entire coastline and invaders will be funneled into a killing zone.


Good to know that there are undefended portions of the Taiwan coastline that a simple air assault that strangely would be otherwise sunk by a sea mine, can land.

not_kent wrote:Ukraine manpads survived massive Russian bombardments and CAS.


Its an established fact that the RuAF is generally absent. Hoping that your greatest threat who has far more resources and can see what's happening and then hope that they will do the same, is very difficult to justify as remotely intelligent.

not_kent wrote:At Omaha Beach on D-Day (WW II) Planes dropped 13,000 bombs before the landing: they completely missed their targets; intense naval bombardment still failed to destroy German emplacements. The result was, Omaha Beach became a horrific killing zone. Many Pacific islands were bombarded for days yet there were still defenders and gun emplacements left.


Yes, and in 1991, only 30 years ago, a PGM fired from a plane can take out a target without missing. China, building its own GPS sat system, equipping its planes with targeting pods, developed wing kitted bombs, selling a whole host of PGMs to others, would not be using PGMs at all would miss its 13000 bombs dropped. Noted.

P.s. Type 15s were designed for the western theater. The idea was simply to have armor in places specifically higher altitudes where a MBT cannot operate.
PreviousNext

Return to Air Power

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: viperzerof-2 and 4 guests