…

You should also understand that the deployment of the Chinese AWACS ( KJ_200 ) is a factor in the detection range. In several scenarios the Chinese player has purposely held back their AWACS over Chinese mainland airspace in order to protect their valuable asset. Japan on the other hand deploys their KC-767 AWACS and their E-2D in a much more aggressive manner. These deployments reflect doctrine and the experiences of the respective countries.

And that’s the value of a simulation such as COMMAND. You can safely explore different tactical setups to see how things play out. Even now materials are being provided that will allow COMMAND to simulate civilian traffic intermixed with military traffic in the Chinese ADIZ. This will complicate the enforcement by the PLAA of the ADIZ.

And it will increase the possibility of mistakes in decision making.

I’m not sure how you come to the conclusion that “the Chinese player has purposely held back their AWACS over Chinese mainland airspace in order to protect their valuable asset.”? If your input is subjective, no wonder any simulation outcome is subjective.

The fact is on 28 Nov, 2013, PLAAF speaker has declared several Su30MK & J11 Fighters, led by a KJ-2000 AWACS, patrolled the airspace within Chinese ADIZ, and KJ-2000 is considered a higher value asset than KJ-200.

The other Chinese geographic advantage is: the disputed airspace overlaying between Chinese & Japanese ADIZs, is much closer to Chinese mainland, where, the HQ-9/S-300 PMU1,2 can extend the air defense far beyond the coast, allowing Chinese AWACSs comfortably operates within the Air defense shield, while still providing sufficient situational awareness coverage over Daoyu islands airspace, why would them venture out to show “experience or braveness”, in order to please you? On the other hands, Japanese AWACSs have to venture out far from its mainland airbases or SAM defenses. it’s obviously a significant nature disadvantage to Japanese yet you arrived the conclusion that” such deployment reflects doctrine and the experiences of Japanese?”. Any blind braveness is suicidal. venturing out so far, facing the biggest 4th G fleet outside US, based in East China, reinforced by hundreds strong H-6s JH-7s, which can strike those outer island military bases or sea targets, let along land based cruise missile sites , SRBMs or MRBMs.

Therefore, such “simulation” is useless due to it’s just a pre-determined ,reflective results of the mindset who operating the computing.

Wait a minute…
But F35 got DSI, while Typhoon doesn’t…

http://www.catic.cn/indexPortal/home/index.do?cmd=goToChannel&cid=746&columnid=1914&cpid=1653&columnType=102&likeType=view&ckw=ATAM&lang=US&dataid=4294#

Catic’s page says sd10 is 203mm wide and 3934 mm long. That is peculiar as people usually quote pl-12 to be 203mm wide but 3850mm long. But the 3,93 meter figure may be more correct because when one looks at images of actual pl12 on planes – width to length ratio, using 203mm width, does suggest a 4 meter long missile, not 3,85 meters long missile.

Using 3,93 meters length of the missile – 737 pixels of pl12 matching the width of missile in j20 gives 191,4 pixels per meter. Thus the outside dimensions of weapon bay doors, considering they measure 850 pixels, are 4,53 meters.
Using 3,85 meters for length of pl12 and this missile, it works out at 4,44 meters.

Both of those are really large figures. When one uses images of j20 where total length of plane and length of opened weapon doors are visible – consensus was that doors were around 4,3, maybe 4,5 meters long. Thus it seems quite unlikely the missile is noticably longer than pl-12. At best it’s some 8-10 cm longer, but even that is close to just conjecture. It is equally possible it’s as long as pl-12, not longer.
If it was much longer, that’d suggest 4,7 m long weapon doors or more which would then suggest 22-23 meter long plane, 3,3 meter long WVR missiles etc, – everything being oversized. I don’t believe that is the likely explanation. Likelier explanation is that we’re looking at pl-12 based body of a missile.

According to some sources, the length of weapon bay is about 4.5m, based on that, it’s PL-12 size AAM

Well, based on the new J20 image I posted on CDF, and certainly we need have 2nd look at the likely length/thickness of the new AAM, ( tentatively called Pl15), certainly great job of totoro’s calculation based on that new J20 image, thanks!

I digged something out about PL15, which, according to Huitong’s blog ( information courtesy to ZXY of CJDBY.net), the PL-15 is developped by 607 institute in Wuxi, instead of the PL-12/SD-10 developer in Luoyang. Good to see competitions now even in AAM area:

It was reported that 607 Institute has been developing a new active radar homing AAM (dubbed PL-15?) comparable to American AIM-120D and may have evolved from PL-12C. Recent photos showed a new type of missile being tested onboard a J-11B fighter. Compared to PL-12, the missile features stabilizing fins and tailfins with reduced wingspans, suggesting its design is optimized for internal carriage by the 4th generation fighters such as J-20 and J-21. PL-15 may also features improved guidance system (including duplex datalink and new active/passive dual mode seeker with enhanced ECCM capability), as well as an improved motor which gives it a longer range (~100km?).
– Last Updated 11/20/11

http://chinese-military-aviation.blogspot.sg/p/missiles-iii.html

From the PL-15 description, it seems the PL-15 is optimized to attack AWACS targets

YES, I agree with SAC ….
Deino

LOL, SAC, the maker of J11B, a competitor of CAC? 😀

A clearer version: