J-10 has no significant advantage in agility/maneuverability over Mirage 2000.

And this is based on?

I seriously doubt that it can match man-machine interface of Mirage.

And this is based on?

There is no proof that J-10 has anything similar or comparable to 2000-9 IMEWS or RDY 2.

There was little official ‘proof’ that the J10 existed at all until last year. Its lazy and self-serving to say ‘there is no proof the J10 has XYZ so its automatically inferior’ as you simply don’t know what the J10 has.

And of course the “unbiased” statement of PL-12 superiority over MICA is issued by PL-12 designer.

The designer was stating facts. The PL12 outrange the MICA, which is handicapped by the design decision to make it both a BVR missile and a WVR missile. So while it is ok at both, it does not really excel in either field.

Taiwan would be the one who would probably want these M2Ks the most, but the sale proceeds from the deal is pocket change compared to what would be at stake for the UEA to offend China like that.

Even the French government would veto the deal as they are desperate to reverse the fallout from the recent spats they had with China, and the ‘we didn’t know’ line will not work since its almost certain the French have end-user agreements to allow them a say in the event of a sale just like this.

India already operates M2ks, so would be a logical choice if only they themselves can decide what they actually want and can get it together in time to put in a bid.

The only other airforce big enough to absorb such a large fleet who do not have indigenous options and commitments would be the PAF. But they would be hard pressed to find the funds for the planes, and also seem to have their funds fully committed to JF17, F16 and maybe even J10 orders.

They are already fully committed to the JF17. F16s they already operate so adding more is going to be far cheaper and easier then getting a new type. J10s are probably already on par with the M2K-9s, and with on-going development of the J10B as well as a potential option of fitting western radar and avionics in the airframe, the J10 is a the far superior choice no matter how you look at it.

And given the already mentioned point about the M2Ks being 2 batches, its far more likely that the planes will be broken up and sold to many different air forces in small batches.

If I was in charge of the IAF, I would snap up the newest planes as quick as I can.

Pakistan may also take some of the older planes if they are offered at a ‘friendship discount’ rate to boost the fleet while the JF17 numbers are being built up. If Pakistan really play their cards right, they might even convince the Chinese to help with funding for a little under the hood action after they take delivery. Good investment for the Chinese to get a huge amount of info they can use to counter ROCAF M2Ks as well as potentially boosting the domestic industry if they learn some new tricks after studying the French kit.

These are the obvious ones who will account for a large share of the planes if they do opt for them. If none of the big boys stand up, then it will likely be existing M2K users who take small batches as replacements or modest increase to their fleets.

cost is the only reason I can think of.

Purhaps also airframe availability.

As opposed to wait xx months for new airframes to come off the production line to be ready to be modified into a ‘high-new’ plane, might as well use existing older model planes that are ready right now that can be ready for testing/operations much earlier.

If China’s first priority is nuking the US, God help us all. There are plenty of uses for a strategic bomber other than nuclear strike. It offers a flexibility a fighter or maritime patrol type aircraft cannot match.

I would ask you to read what I have wrote again.

As for bombers, well there is always a pro in getting a new asset. The issue here is cost/benefit and actual requirement, as there are plenty of other things China can spend its limited resources on that will reap far greater rewards.

And of course, there is going to be the political ramifications of a new Chinese intercont bomber because everyone and their dog will know who this new bomber is chiefly going to be aimed at, and there is no benefit for the PLA to make the US such an obvious target.

No.

Well, I supose I can’t just leave it at that. 😛

The 160km missiles are similar to the pheonix in that they were designed to take down strategic bombers, and have a questionable use against agile fighters.

Againts 5th gen, it would not be likely to see the raptor and will only know one is in the area when a AMRAAM is heading its way.

Although its good highspeed performance might give it a good chance of outrunning the AMRAAM unless it was fired from very close.

Against 4.5 gen planes, it would probably fare a lot better with R77s and doing slash and dash attacks. Although how effective it will be is a bit up in the air.

There are some fundamental misconceptions here. People are still thinking that the FAC(M) is an interceptor of HVU’s – a seaborne strikefighter if you will – thats not the case. The FAC(M) is an AShM missile truck that is free from roads and thats about its lot. Its speed is of trivial significance as it will not be able to run from an inbound missile envelope in the same way an aircraft might. What it offers, like the truck, is persistance in the OpArea. You cant keep a pair of strikefighters in one place for 7 days on end unless you have many dozens of aircraft, aircrew and missiles to cycle through. Remember that missiles, big heavy ones especially, have airframe carriage lives and you dont want to have to decertify half of your arsenal on maintenance/reliability grounds just before the shooting starts!.

A very good point which I neglected to mention before.

This is where the above comment falls flat to an extent. Offboard support and, if you are shooting 200km+ ranged missiles, its going to have to be good offboard support (unless the missiles are intelligent enough to reduce the targetting overheads required – a la NSM) has to be omnipresent. Its no good having a great powerful multimode radar on overwatch if its back on its home airfield when your threat is coming into theatre entry. So your equation to defeat the destroyer is something like:

(No. missiles to saturate target defences/FAC(M) SSM battery size) + (4 x theatre targetting asset)

The good news is that the targetting asset cost item there pays off as it services other shooter assets, as ‘wolf describes, but its still a considerable expense. Obviously the 4x value is for something like a comprehensively fitted MPA which would probably represent about the minimum support you would require. Three airframes to cycle through the flying programme with one attrition reserve.

Suddenly, with the indispensable support costs for the targetting platform added, the capabilities of 6 FAC(M)’s each mounting 8 LR AShM’s (to have a high probability of success engaging one T45 class destroyer) look far less ‘fractional’ in cost/benefit terms.

Well, I think the cost/benefit aspect is a bit of a strange concept to apply here in the way have done it, because in the above case, the FACs effectively have ‘free’ shots with minimal chances of taking any losses and the destroyer (purhaps using the Type45 as the opfor here was where I went wrong :P) is in effect powerless to respond in any meaningful way.

In such a case, even investing more then the cost of the destoryer to obtain the means to kill it with effective impunity is hardly a ‘bad’ investment in anyone’s books.

I think what you are arguing is in terms of opportunity cost. Now here, it might not be that fantastic as for similar costs, you can get a burke/Type 45 equivilant yourself. That would be true in that destoryers can be used for far missions then and FAC, so FACs = fewer destroyers, so the opportunity costs are high.

I am thinking in more direct terms as in the cost in lives and material to take out a modern destroyer.

Now, even with the longest range AShMs, many modern destoryers have (or will have soon-ish) SAMs with ranges to reach out and intercept the planes before they can launch, and launching missiles at the very edge of their range envelope will have a negative impact on the PK of the missiles as well as give the target greater warning on an attack.

The different risks to difference assets can be approximated to the number of assets lost/traded to kill a destroyer, and in this respect, FACs would offer better returns for your investment.

As you can see, the cost/benefit aspect depends entirely on what you value the cost against. So its a bit hard to reach any consencus using this.

That is also taking a very simple ‘traditional’ FAC(M), such as the new Chinese multihull unit as representative, start adding in 3D radars, SAMS, medium calibre guns, CIWS and ESM/ECM fitouts to the basic recipe and watch what happens to the bottom line!.

Well, call me a traditionalist, but if I always thought all these extras are a burdern as it detracts from the core mission of the platform while adding additional functions of questionable value.

The only additional function you should ever need is mine laying, and that should not cost much at all to accomidate. If you want/need anything else, you should never have gone with FACs to start with. Better off to have gone for a corvette or light frigate.

I wont be surprised if Chinese have a hand here , they might well transfer a late vintage simple fission device but which is resasonable small to be carried on top of missile.

Chinese will be more than happy to create headache for the western govenrment and keep them engaged.

If Noko tested its device twice and that too sucessfully , wonder how far Iranian is.

So finally AQ Khan – Noko – Iran nexus has seen its own share of success.

Baseless and plain thoughtless nonsense.

Pretty much the last thing China wants is a nuclear NK as that will make it far more likely that Japan and SK will go nuclear too.

NK has always been unpredictable and dangerous, even to China. In the past, the PLA can easily handle the North Korean military, but nukes makes an entirely new ball game.

Even if NK never directly threaten China. Before, the worst that could have happened was NK gets toasted by the UK-Japan-SK alliance and northen China gets flooded with refugees.

Now, if things kick off, those refugees are likely to come with a radiation cloud.

So yeah, China wants NK to have nukes. :rolleyes:

Yawn

Yes China has made significant accomplishments in it’s own right in this field and they should be congratulated for that.

They should however NOT be congratulated for espionage, theft and outright illegal use of intellectual property in this field (J-11, PL-12, WS-10, etc. etc.).

Be proud China of your accomplishments, but be a little more humble about how you got there.

Oh please give me a break. If China made a major breakthrough tomorrow that gave them a significant technological advantage over the US, and some CIA man managed to nab the secret formular, do you doubt for a second he would not be treated as a national hero or that the US would have any reservations about using that newly ill-gotten tech, especially when national security is concerned?