crobatoF-16C landing distance isn’t that much better than F-15, not to the degree of making a difference in damage runway landing.
It’s true Taiwan did consider Harrier as a F-5 replacement, but cost and lifecycle concerns torpedoed the proposal.
It was a serious consideration. The ROC was ready to lease something like 60 ex US Marine AV-8s.
Cruise missiles do not automatically negate SAM defense against aircrafts, it depends on the capability of cruise missile defense systems. If CMD systems provide at least a minimal defense, then it would force the launching platform flying closer to maximize cruise missile performance, thereby closer to SAM as well.
Cruise missiles can be used to target bases and infrastructure supporting aircraft.
Defenses do not force a launching platform to fly closer to maximize cruise missile performance. Unlike antiship missiles, cruise missiles do not perform evasive maneuvers; terrain hugging is their only defense. Does not matter if the launching is shorter or farther, end performance is always the same. As ground targets don’t do evasive maneuvers like planes, you don’t need “reserve” energy. For example, a Kh-31P, even if runs out of fuel at 110km, will still travel for a considerable range and speed out of sheer momentum, before it goes down to strike the ground target.
Because missiles fly faster than aircraft, even cruise missiles fly faster than the big bombers launching them, it is actually faster to launch cruise missiles earlier than for the bombers to keep flying closer to the target before launching the missiles. Flying closer would also warn the defenses even more than a cruise missile on its way. This way, you can hit a target before it decides to truck its way out of there.
Overall S-300 is probably better than any current Taiwanese SAM systems, but war is never only about individual system comparisons. ROCAF doctrine is a layered defense with long range SAM engagement as outer layer and aircraft as middle layer before the point defense layer (Regardless of the feasibility of this doctrine, it is not the “dreaming” scenario painted above. ROCAF is conservative to a fault, but not completely incompetent). PLA’s S-300 does heavily compress ROCAF airspace over the Taiwan Strait, but ultimately S-300 could not conduct attacks against Taiwanese ground assets and PLAAF must send its aircrafts ahead.
Only if the PLAAF intends to dumb bomb, but this not the case if the PLAAF will use stand off weapons for example:
YJ-63 – 200km to 300km
Kh-59ME – 115km
Kh-31P – 110km.
Offshore offensive doctrine is an emerging school of thought within ROCAF. Even Taiwan’s MND paid lip service to fighting paralysis warfare instead of attrition warfare. However there is always a catch, which is already stated clearly here. Offensive doctrine requires ROCAF to face PLA defense assets, and that requires a large investment and a different set of specialization. It’s not an easy decision in which one side is obviously the “right thing”.
Yes indeed.
But again, waiting to be pounded is the bigger catch of a defensive strategy. You don’t have the power of initiative. When you already have given away quantitative and increasingly likely, qualitative advantages to your enemy, you are left with nothing but initiative. You don’t want to give that away too. You might as well raise the white flag.
I see taking the initiative more of a disruption and harassment strategy as opposed to a paralysis strategy.
crobatoInteresting article. How reliable are those infos ? I mean this is the most detailed article about the J-10 I ever read.
Some interesting material but plenty of holes and mistakes. Need extensive working and correction.
crobatoI dont think Taiwan needs to counter all the fighter threat personally , moreover the fighter to fighter comparison doesnt take into account the fact that TAiwan WILL ALMOST ALWAYS BE DEFENDING AND RESPONDING TO A CHINESE ATTACK therefore you have to factor in the use of SAM’s agains penetrating Chinese fighters .
What you appear and failed to account is that the Chinese attack is now able to carry stand off missiles like the Kh-59MK and the worst the YJ-63s. The PLAAF could literally launch these missiles **WHILE** still over the mainland and turn back to base without flying over the Straits.
Even the PLA can literally shell Taiwan with MLRS from units off the coast. S300 and HQ-9 SAMs can reach far enough to cover much of the Straits, literally putting defending interceptors from the ROC under SAM fire.
The problem of the ROCAF is they’re still thinking of the Battle of Britain or Battle of Malta type aerial engagement where the “few” would engage vast hordes of obsolete and incompetently flown PLAAF fleets over the channel and inflict as much losses as possible to make the invasion implausible by cost.
What a dream.
And keep on dreaming because that’s not how it’s going to work.
The best defense Taiwan can actually have is to go to the offensive and take out preemptively PLAAF stand off bombers, bomb PLAAF air bases, C31, battle management networks, PLA missile, MLRS sites, as well as PLAN fleet assembly areas before the stand off cruise and ballistic missiles would gut the ROCAF in the first few hours.
This means they are the ones who have to face PLA SAM sites (S-300s), PLAN ships like the 052C Red Aegis and defend from interceptors like J-7s and J-8IIs.
Playing around with point defense interceptors is like taking a handgun or shotgun while your enemy fights you with assault and sniper rifles.
Always reacting defensively and letting the other guy control the initiative is what I would call a defeatist and losing strategy.
crobatoThat’s one hell of a camo.
This thread sure has a lot of incredible pictures.
That Czech MiG-21 1001, that sure must be one of the original -F or -FL models (which the J-7 is based from). There isn’t a lot of the original Iron Curtain made version of this plane.
crobatoThe J-10 with the big nozzle looks like a serial production jet to me with the bland unfeatured grey and I don’t think they would put WS-10A in that other than a prototype which would have been marked differently. As we have seen either prototypes are left in primer yellow or they have a camouflage pattern.
I don’t disagree that at this time they should be testing one though.
crobatoWho knows, J-10 turn out to be with WS-10 Turbofan Engine could be faster than most of us thought.. 😀
Interesting. Was counting the nozzle petals on that thing.
crobatoI must add that the old regimental numbering used to be like this.
1st Division
1st Regiment
2nd
3rd
2nd Division
4th
5th
6th regiment
3rd Division
7th Regiment
8th Regiment
9th Regiment
And on and on. When you reach the 10th Regiment, it becomes 0, and the 11th becomes 1 and the 12th becomes 2. Likewise, the 20th, 21st and 22nd regiment will also be 0, 1, 2. 13 to 19 becomes 3 to 9 and 23 to 29 will also be 3 to 9.
By the time you reach the 44th Division, it’s 130th, 131st and 132nd Regiment.
In the old system, this becomes the regiment number. For example, the J-11s of the 6th Regiment 2nd Division have the numbers 16X3X.
Now the system is much simpler
0 – Leading regiment. Top Dogs that get the best and most modern equipment.
1 – Follow up regiment. You’re the second tier. Not so bad.
2 – Poor blokes following up the rear.
crobatoThe J-10 50150 was quite interesting when it first appeared late 2004. At first we thought the numbers were ps’ed because it was the same as a transport group. At that time no one knew that the PLAAF had decided to modify its numbering system.
It used to be that the first and fourth numbers – 1 = division number. But if the division number is less than 10, it is the first and fourth numbers – 11 = division number. Thus DRUDU , as in D for division number, R for regiment number and U for unit number.
Hence 2nd division was always 13 but the 44th division was actually 45. Hence why the 44th Division J-10s had 4RX5X numbers, XX being unit serial number and R being regiment number.
But in 2005, it was clear that the PLAAF was changed its numbering system so that DD – 11 = divisional number is now used in all divisions. So the 44th Division is actually 5XX5X not 4XX5X.
I studied the numbers for a while. All letters in the plane are all unique, which means they’re not copied and pasted from a single source. They are also angled in relation to the 3D view of the plane. Even better, the corners of the letters in the tail actually curves in consistent to the upper surface of the tail root. What’s even more interesting is that the front digit showed paint smearing to indicate the first number was actually physically painted over the original number.
The number of the J-10 would have been originally 40150, with the 4 painted over to become 50150. As of 2004, all letters are still painted in blue, so this means this J-10 is about the same vintage as photos of other 44th Division J-10s like 41251 and 41252. By 2005, the lettering has been changed to orange.
As for the JH-7As, 2XX9X could have been 28th Division in the old system but 18th Division in the new system. Now this is confusing since the 28th Division actually has its own regiment of JH-7As, although it was concluded first that 2XX9X were 28th Division, when in truth, it was 18th Division.
The 28th Division had its own JH-7As when photos of planes bearing the number 3XX9X started showing up.
http://mil.jschina.com.cn/huitong/gallery.htm
Because these JH-7A all have the warning orange color for their numbers, the photos are of the same vintage and could not be of the same regiment.
Plus the numbers are actually 21X9X vs. 30X9X. In the 28th Division, the JH-7As are considered the lead group being the most advanced plane for that division. I gather the rest of the division are Q-5s. In fact 30X9X used to be Q-5 numbers but I guess the Q-5s have been renumbered ever since like 32X9X or 33X9X.
But in the 18th Division, the JH-7As have a regiment 1 number, which means they’re second dog to a top fiddle regiment. But we also know that the 18th Division also has Su-30MKKs, so like the 28th Division, this is also an attack and strike regiment, and the JH-7As take a secondary role to the Su-30MKKs, which is likely to be numbered 20X8X now.
Lately we also saw J-11s in the 1st Division numbered 10X2X. Previously they were using 11X2X numbers. Then the J-8Fs took the 11X2X numbers, and the J-11s were reassigned 10X2X numbers, again denoting the J-11s to be “higher” than the J-8Fs. I must note that the J-11 10021 isn’t the same J-11 as 11021, as noted in Hui Tong’s pictures in the link above, due to the differing color of their tail edges. Which makes me wonder why the 1st Division is getting even _newer_ J-11s, replacing previous even still new J-11s and where did the previous J-11s go. Also I sure like to see 12X2X or the third regiment of the 1st Division and what planes are they using now. Are they still using J-7Es? Or did they get more J-8Fs or got hand me down J-11s?
It is interesting that the J-10s in the 3rd Division are getting 10X4X numbers. Su-30MKKs also belong to the 3rd Division, but the J-10s are still getting the lead number of “0” which indicates a lot what the PLAAF thinks of the J-10 in relation to the Su-30MKK.
crobatoThere are several competing proposals for Taiwanese F-5E/F replacement. F-15 is one of them. Taiwan Ministry of National Defense apparently favors leased F-15, but the air force does not. The downside of F-15 is obviously the heavy cost and complexity of introducing a new type. The upside is greater air engagement capability per sortie (i.e. radar & the number of missiles). In the end the F-16 C/D won the internal debate, even if that is also a questionable move.
US approved sales of 200 AMRAAM. Taiwan only bought 120 AMRAAM partly because of the initial condition of US not releasing the BVR AAM until PLAAF receives the delivery of R-77. The restriction was later lifted, but no followed up orders so far.
Engines for F-CK-1 are TFE-1042s. In July, AIDC announced the F-CK-1 C/D’s first flight would be on Oct. 10th (National Day).
Sweden abandoned the engine co-development proposal of JAS-39 and F-CK-1 for political reasons and the cost/technical risks. The situation is no better today. For all the “neutrality” talks and special weapon export policies, the truth is no nations will ignore realpolitik. Also JAS-39 is really no better than newer blocks of F-16s for Taiwan. This is one of the least likely, along with the EF-2000.
In reality the JAS-39 is no better than the Ching Kuo in terms of thrust to weight ratio. In fact, the Gripen is just a l-eee-ttle bit slightly inferior.
+++
If the ROC didn’t buy F-16s, I would have thought F-18s are a better choice. The island itself is like a nonsinkable aircraft carrier. The F-18s is more than capable of taking off and landing from short distances, its folding wings makes it very easy to store in hidden and sheltered locations. Double engine redundancy gives it a superior safety margin over water, and the plane has a better safety record than the F-16. It is extremely maneuverable, more so than the F-16 and the F-15, and has excellent maintainability.
crobatoWhat are the domestic candidates for powering the FC-1?
There is an engine that was supposedly called WS-13. In addition to that, the designer of the Kunlun stated in an interview a few years ago they were looking into more powerful versions and a turbofan version. If they can increase the power or maximum thrust from the Kunlun II at 7500 to 7600kg to something over 8100kg and make it a turbofan, it is entirely possible.
crobatoThe WS-10A was officially certified as of February 2006 and named “Tai Hang”. When a domestic engine gets a name, it has passed all its tests, e.g. “Kunlun” and “Qin Ling” being the other two domestic turbines.
It is likely to be on extended testing on J-11s right now. WS-10A for the J-10s will take some more time due to the differences between the J-11 and the J-10 that requires among other things, relocation of the gearbox and accessories, different “tuning”, slightly different dimensions, and tighter safety specs. Plus the AL-31FNs seem to be running A-OK on the J-10s and you probably don’t want to “fix” something that isn’t broken this time soon.
I doubt J-10 would be sold to Egypt and Iran. China not interested in antagonizing Americans further on the Iran issue and they themselves are not very tolerant of Moslem fundamentalists. I kind of doubt that China would sell Egypt J-10s so the US and other countries can take a good look at them there. China is still a bit paranoid.
Next version of the J-10 according to Janes (probably mouthed by the Russians to them), is the “Super 10”. Super 10 uses the enhanced AL-31FN that makes more power and has the 3D TVC nozzle from Klimov, the same design used on the MiG-29OVT. In addition it has a phase array radar, likely to be a domestic development. No naval variant or twin engined variant, not for the meantime sorry.
crobatoThey’re called TFE-1029s I think, licensed by Garret/Allied Signal and made in Taiwan. They’re small, and combined, the Ching Kuo still has a respectable TWR of around 0.89 at full combat load. But that’s considerably lower than a Block 50 F-16.
Other than pilot shortage, the two things confounding the ROCAF is the lack of HMS and insufficient AMRAAM, even though they got plenty of TC-2 and MICA in stock. But AMRAAM shortages will definitely affect the F-16 part of their fleet, though there is no lacking for the Ching Kuos and M2000s for a decent ARH BVRAAM.
HMS is a problem because even some late model J-7s and J-8IIs are getting HMS, and J-8IIs are being upgraded to using PL-12, an ARH missile. Though its debatable if the PL-12 is better than the TC-2, J-8IIs are faster than the Ching Kuos, and their lack of maneuverability is negated by their speed. Simply said, they could avoid WVR combat with the Ching Kuos and M2000s. taking shots of opportunity with their PL-12s and PL-8s with HMS. A missile launched off a faster platform from a height advantage has a higher chance of probability kill.
And if confronted with a J-7 using HMS and PL-8, it’s not a guarantee they will win the WVR fight either. The J-7E/G isn’t easy to detect in radar if flying low, and can easily come up for a sneak attack if you’re preoccupied fighting other planes like J-11s, J-10s and J-8IIs. The ROCAF can’t afford a 1 to 1 ratio against late model J-7E/Gs and need to maintain a significant superiority over these. Lacking enough AMRAAM, using AIM-7s and AIM-9s isn’t enough.
I think the F-15 is not a bad choice for the reasons I mentioned, but going for the 66 F-16 Block 52 plus is not a bad choice either. To maintain a sustainable edge for the PRC, the PLAAF has to maintain a 3 to 1 edge among the advanced planes (J-10/11) alone to compensate.
crobatoHey Crobato, do you have any photos of the “0th regiment” J-10 of 44th division? Huitong’s site only has links to “1st regiment”.
This one. No. 50150. 55 – 11 = 44th Division. Second digit 0 means regiment number. 10 is the plane’s serial.
crobatoThe Ching Kuo is a decent fighter. It’s a pretty good turn fighter, not many fighters could turn inside an F-5E. But it’s TWR is lacking versus an F-16, so it’s not the best fighter is you prefer to follow Boyd’s theories.
The pluses of the F-15 vs. F-16
For the F-15
1. More punch per mission
2. ROCAF has a severe pilot shortage. It may be better to maximize on the use of the pilots it has than to add more pilots.
3. Lack of composite on the F-15 makes it easier to repair for battle damage on the field.
4. Plane is definitely more survivable. Again, please note Point #2.
5. You can save more on space inside shelters with fewer jets that can do do more output.
For the F-16
1. Better mission turn around rate
2. Already has a training and maintenance infrastructure
3. Will cost less per plane
4. Will fit more planes inside sheltered structures
crobatoIf you expect your country to be heavily bombed to the ground, you would have to consider your maintenance issue to be absolutely critical, not to mention the space for storing aircraft under mountain shelters. There are arguments that actually support both F-16 and F-15.
Sign In
