Taiwan begins F-16V modernisation effort

[jhungary]

Not only is the dude @jhungary unable to write English to an acceptable level, he starts talking about air warfare like he is some sort of expert. From what I gather he was in the army and now should stick to that area.

He seriously thinks that Taiwanese F-16s will present any more than a tiny nuisance to China. If this is not going to get you mocked, then I do now know what will.

How will the F-16 engage the SU-30/FC-1 that are obliterating it's military assets?
They will be picked up by AWACs as soon as they take off and will soon have a
ramjet powered AAM from a J-20 heading their way.

Not only is "This" (not "the", there are more than one jhungary) dude unable to write (no English, it's redundant) in (not to) an acceptable level, he started (you are going on something I had already said) talking (or more formally, to talk) about air warfare like he is some sort of expert. From what I had gathered (again, past tense, you don't just gather the information as you type), he was (And this you got right) in the army and should (no now, why do you need now to enphasis now?) stick to that area.

This is a defence forum, not an English test, why would I need to do spell check or grammar check (by the way, yours English is not good either) And I never said I am good in English, English is NOT my primary language, as I said so many time, My primary language is Spanish and Chinese. Not that I care about your english, I am not the one talking about this in the first place, but man, can you at least do your own grammar check BEFORE you comment on mind?

Also, fighting a war is the same across each discipline, the tactics, strategies are the same, no matter which ways you are fighting. I can comment on anything and everything, if you think what I said is wrong, prove it, but not trying to say my english sucks and call me for it,

I have already said how this is going to be a problem for China, you choose not to believe is your problem, if you want to say that I am wrong, you need to find some point to counter my point, merely saying "if this is not going to get you mocked" is not a point of counter argument, by the way, it's "If this will not get you mocked"

 

[Penguin]

Please learn to write English without spelling and grammatical errors if you want to be taken seriously.

You are seeking confrontation. Stop that.

Not only is the dude @jhungary unable to write English to an acceptable level, he starts talking about air warfare like he is some sort of expert. From what I gather he was in the army and now should stick to that area.

What exacly are YOUR qualifications for judging someone else's level of English proficiency?
Lots of people here talk about (air) warfare like they are some sort of expert. You imply you are and he isn't. So, what are YOUR credentials in this area? And please do explain why someone with an Army background cannot also know a thing or two about other areas of defence?

He seriously thinks that Taiwanese F-16s will present any more than a tiny nuisance to China. If this is not going to get you mocked, then I do now know what will.

Coming from someone flying the colors of a nation that has as its best air asset the Chengdu F-7 (Mig 21) purchased 1988 (32 active) and the Mikoyan MiG-29 purchased 1982 (8 active), I'm not surprised you would think that. Except that Taiwan has 170 odd F-16 and these, unlike the BD planes, have been or are going to be modernized. Not to mention some 100-125 F-CK-1.

How will the F-16 engage the SU-30/FC-1 that are obliterating it's military assets?
They will be picked up by AWACs as soon as they take off and will soon have a
ramjet powered AAM from a J-20 heading their way.

As if the J-20 would not be roled to hunt AWACS and tankers and such...
As if there are no other air defences.

 

[UKBengali]

@Penguin: Will ignore your comments about a certain poster's English skills as I have made my point now.

As for your comment about J-20, you know perfectly well that a fighter that is one-gen ahead of F-16/FCK-1 will have little trouble shooting pretty much the whole Taiwanese fleet down, if they dare come to confront the Chinese attacking planes that will be systematically destroying it's military assets.

Why cannot the J-20 handle tankers, AWACs and F-16s simultaneously? It's radar is reckoned to be able to pick up a 1 sq meter target at 450km and so it would not even need AWACs support. Check out below link:

http://www.popsci.com/china-new-long-range-air-to-air-missile

What exactly will happen to ANY F-16 that is anywhere near Taiwan when the J-20, when combined with the J-1X series aircraft, pairand target everything that flies? They will get obliterated.

PLAAF is being built to confront the US. Taiwan will soon become a minor nuisance.


As for our friend @gambit talking about lessons from Vietnam, all I can say is:
Anyone who knows anything about technology at the time knows that the BVR AAMs carried by fighters such as Phantom had a hit rate of less than 10%. Airborne radars also had great difficulty picking up targets flying low, and so a flight of Mig-21s could suddenly "pop-up" at the last minute and attack a B-52 formation before diving back down under radar cover.

 

[Penguin]

@Penguin: Will ignore your comments about a certain poster's English skills as I have made my point now.

You shouldn't. For you were being confrontational for no reason, And afaik English is not your first language and you are not an English language teacher or tester. Lots of people here talk about (air) warfare like they are some sort of expert. You imply you are and he isn't. So, what are YOUR credentials in this area? And please do explain why someone with an Army background cannot also know a thing or two about other areas of defence?

As for your comment about J-20, you know perfectly well that a fighter that is one-gen ahead of F-16/FCK-1 will have little trouble shooting pretty much the whole Taiwanese fleet down, if they dare come to confront the Chinese attacking planes that will be systematically destroying it's military assets.

Why cannot the J-20 handle tankers, AWACs and F-16s simultaneously? It's radar is reckoned to be able to pick up a 1 sq meter target at 450km and so it would not even need AWACs support. Check out below link:

http://www.popsci.com/china-new-long-range-air-to-air-missile

http://www.popsci.com/china-new-long-range-air-to-air-missile

Since you quote Popular Science, let me quote Popular Mechanics about how the F16V will engage.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/news/a17874/f-16v-first-flight/.
http://lockheedmartin.com/us/news/features/2016/Meet-the-F-16V.html

What exactly will happen to ANY F-16 that is anywhere near Taiwan when the J-20, when combined with the J-1X series aircraft, pairand target everything that flies? They will get obliterated.

PLAAF is being built to confront the US. Taiwan will soon become a minor nuisance.

Number built: 8 prototypes and 4 low rate initial production fighters
Six J-20s are in active service, with another six delivered at the end of Dec 2016.

The Pentagon described the J-20 as "a platform capable of long range, penetrating strikes into complex air defense environments." Former- SecDef Robert Gates downplayed the significance of the aircraft by questioning how stealthy the J-20 is. Loren B. Thompson, CEO of the Lexington Institute and former deputy director of Georgetown University's Security Studies Program professor, felt that J-20's combination of forward stealth and long range puts America's surface assets at risk, and that a long-range maritime strike capability may cause the United States more concern than a short range air-superiority fighter like the F-22.
Observers are not able to reach a consensus on J-20's primary role:

• Some see the J-20 as an F-111 equivalent with little to no air-to-air ability.
  
• Others see the J-20 as a potential air superiority fighter once appropriate engines become available [i.e. not just yet]
• Yet other speculations refer to the J-20 as an air-to-air fighter, with an emphasis on forward stealth, high-speed aerodynamics, range, and adequate agility.
• Finally, there are those that say the J-20 is intented to threaten vulnerable tankers and ISR/C2 platforms, depriving Washington of radar coverage and strike range.

Any of these sources of analysis carry greater significance than your forum-member opion (or mine)

As for @gambit, I have great respect for his demonstrated knowledge of matter of defence. And while I no always agree with @jhungary, we do have good substantive discussion.

I would really like to see this whole debate to cease to be personalized not. We're all just visitors here. Thank you all for your cooperation and your best behavior.

 

[The Accountant]

Sir with all due respect i would like to request that we should come back to the topic ...

Now the way forward to continue this debate is to discuss advantages and disadvantages of both air forces ...

1 what are the number of 4th generation fighters of both air forces.
2 what are the no of aesa equipped 4th generation fighter of both air force.
3 how many awacs are available at both sides.
4 how many fifth generation fighter china could feel in 2022.

Furthermore what will be the role of china new basis in SC sea and air craft carrier as china will have advantage in terms of number of sorties as well as area of attack ...

@Penguin sir i agree that f16v has a chance against j20 but once f16 in air and lets suppose get success in taking down j10 or other fighter ... but how will it get away from eyes of awacs ... its location and base will be disclosed and china will take it fown using cruise missile and satellite assisted weaponnary ...

In my humble opinion even if we consider both forces are equal than china will win coz of numeric superiority ... however the main test of capabilities is in terms of how quickly china can take down taiwan before arrival of help from taiwan's allies both militarily and diplomatically and how long taiwan can keep china at bay ...

I think everyone here would acknowledge that one to one war will turn in favour of china in long term ... as china has ability to sustain more damage in comparison to taiwan ...

 

[Penguin]

Sir with all due respect i would like to request that we should come back to the topic ...

Yes, that would be nice, after all this BS about English language proficiency

Now the way forward to continue this debate is to discuss advantages and disadvantages of both air forces ...

1 what are the number of 4th generation fighters of both air forces.
2 what are the no of aesa equipped 4th generation fighter of both air force.
3 how many awacs are available at both sides.
4 how many fifth generation fighter china could feel in 2022.

Furthermore what will be the role of china new basis in SC sea and air craft carrier as china will have advantage in terms of number of sorties as well as area of attack ...

What air defences, what vulnerability//hardening, what external support, what global situation (are there simultaneous other - potential - conflicts?), Missile forces?

@Penguin sir i agree that f16v has a chance against j20 but once f16 in air and lets suppose get success in taking down j10 or other fighter ... but how will it get away from eyes of awacs ... its location and base will be disclosed and china will take it fown using cruise missile and satellite assisted weaponnary ...

That works both ways. Taiwan too has AEWC aircraft and long-range radars, Chinese airbases are known too and Taiwan also posesses land-bases missiles that could hit them (e.g. Hsiung Feng IIE, Yun Feng) . So it is will not be a scenario where only Taiwan is on the receiving end.

In my humble opinion even if we consider both forces are equal than china will win coz of numeric superiority ... however the main test of capabilities is in terms of how quickly china can take down taiwan before arrival of help from taiwan's allies both militarily and diplomatically and how long taiwan can keep china at bay ...

Well, like in a scenario of, say Estonia or Latvia versus Russia, the outcome is ultimately predictable. If that's the only thing going on.

I think everyone here would acknowledge that one to one war will turn in favour of china in long term ... as china has ability to sustain more damage in comparison to taiwan ...

Yes, but it does depend on what happens in the rest of the world. Critical long term damage need not necessarily be due to military action. The Soviets Union came down too, you know ;-)

But I'm not particularly interested in discussing PRC v. ROC anyway.... I do like discussions to remain civil and substantive.

 

[gambit]

Not only is the dude @jhungary unable to write English to an acceptable level, he starts talking about air warfare like he is some sort of expert. From what I gather he was in the army and now should stick to that area.

Then what about YOU ? At least Gary was Army and I was Air Force. What about YOU ? What do you have to offer this forum in terms of knowledge and experience in military affairs ?

He seriously thinks that Taiwanese F-16s will present any more than a tiny nuisance to China. If this is not going to get you mocked, then I do now know what will.

From YOU, a civilian who have no military experience and talks like you do ? Why should we not mock you ?

 

[UKBengali]

Then what about YOU ? At least Gary was Army and I was Air Force. What about YOU ? What do you have to offer this forum in terms of knowledge and experience in military affairs ?


From YOU, a civilian who have no military experience and talks like you do ? Why should we not mock you ?

Since what I say is logical and makes sense.
There are plenty of people with experience who are not very good at what they do
in all walks of life.

Now, would you like to counter my views about why the air-war experiences from Vietnam are simply
not applicable in a China/Taiwan scenario?

 

[HRK]

some of our fighters were not MLUed and are at adf standards and hence extra expense in terms of structural upgrades.

All ADF version F-16 bought by Jordan had received Service life upgradtion before joining the Royal Jordanian Air force, at the time of joining PAF average service life available against each air frame was around 3000 flying hours

 

[The Accountant]

All ADF version F-16 bought by Jordan had received Service life upgradtion before joining the Royal Jordanian Air force, at the time of joining PAF average service life available against each air frame was around 3000 flying hours

Thanks for sharing ... I was not aware ... I would like to request to share your opinion ... Should we invest further in f16 or should we look for another 4.5 generation platform ?

 

[HRK]

Thanks for sharing ... I was not aware ... I would like to request to share your opinion ... Should we invest further in f16 or should we look for another 4.5 generation platform ?

on pure technical grounds no one can deny relevance of F-16s in current (or even in next 10-15 years) in aerial warfare environment in most part of the world including subcontinent not only this it is being said that our existing infrastructure can absorb additional 36-54 F-16 BUT on political grounds it may prove a risky ADVENTURE

Once I said about F-16

I love my girlfriend but hate her father .... a sad truth ....

 

[The Accountant]

on pure technical grounds no one can deny relevance of F-16s in current (or even in next 10-15 years) in aerial warfare environment in most part of the world including subcontinent not only this it is being said that our existing infrastructure can absorb additional 36-54 F-16 BUT on political grounds it may prove a risky ADVENTURE

Once I said about F-16

I love my girlfriend but hate her father .... a sad truth ....

Sir you summarised it well ... and last statement was classical ... main crux of it ...

 

[LeGenD]

No way ... it will cost us around 1.5 billion usd ... in that price we can get a squadron of su35 with weapon package ... we can use it to counter rafael with lot of other options ... either we need 5th generation or some other more hi.tech goodie ...

So what are the credentials of SU-35? Any convincing information you can provide aside from specifications?

I will leave a hint: we do not live in an era of mechanical stuff, we live in an era of intelligent systems and network-centric platforms. Our choices should keep these two factors in mind because they will make hell of a difference in a conventional engagement. So our focus should be on developing a credible network-centric warfare capability; introducing new platforms is not helpful in this aspect, rather introduces new set of complications to take care of.

F-16 at V standard is state-of-the-art enough to defeat any aircraft that is short of being a true 5th generation aircraft and that list is very very small.

Heck, our F-16 C/D give migraines to Indians already. And they literally started crying when Barack Obama offered us 8 more. A large fleet of these would literally obliterate anything India can throw at us in the air, and from a long distance.

Another thing is that quality is never (never) cheap. Something really lacks in cheaper stuff one way or the other.

Yes, sanctions are a concern. But I don't think they would be a problem if we play our geopolitical cards right.

 

[The Accountant]

So what are the credentials of SU-35? Any convincing information you can provide aside from specifications?

I will leave a hint: we do not live in an era of mechanical stuff, we live in an era of intelligent systems and network-centric platforms. Our choices should keep these two factors in mind because they will make hell of a difference in a conventional engagement. So our focus should be on developing a credible network-centric warfare capability; introducing new platforms is not helpful in this aspect, rather introduces new set of complications to take care of.

F-16 at V standard is state-of-the-art enough to defeat any aircraft that is short of being a true 5th generation aircraft and that list is very very small.

Heck, our F-16 C/D give migraines to Indians already. And they literally started crying when Barack Obama offered us 8 more. A large fleet of these would literally obliterate anything India can throw at us in the air, and from a long distance.

Another thing is that quality is never (never) cheap. Something really lacks in cheaper stuff one way or the other.

Yes, sanctions are a concern. But I don't think they would be a problem if we play our geopolitical cards right.

Sir you are absolutely right that current warfare is of net cnetric warfare and thats the reason i am more concerned on continous relaince on f16 as whatever asset we will induct it will take time to integrate ... so whatever the decision we are going we have to take it now ... now let me put some realities in front of you so that you can better shed light on that ...

India has been offerred a further advanced version of block V which was never on offer to us hence we are already in disadvantage ... if india choses to accept than we will no longer be able to further upgarde even if could somehow able to keep maintenance supply chain open...

If india choses to reject ... then f16 has no further orders hence no further development in the platform so in anycase f16 will cease to be frontline platform after a decade at max ...

In case of any war we will not be having any supplies of ammunitions and spares for f16 whereas india will continue to have supplies for mki atleast and probably for rafael as well ...

There is not a single week in which US do not slam us ... we destroyed our whole country ... lost 60 thousand people and still we listen to do more from usa ... then why do you except after they are gone from afghansitan there will sales to Pakistan ???. have you forget presseler ammendments ???

Su35 might not be battle proven than why soviet union was such a headach for usa ... this is all propaganda by western countries that russian tech is too inferrior ... there are differneces but not as much as they are being portrayed ...

 

[LeGenD]

Since what I say is logical and makes sense.
There are plenty of people with experience who are not very good at what they do
in all walks of life.

Now, would you like to counter my views about why the air-war experiences from Vietnam are simply
not applicable in a China/Taiwan scenario?

I am a civilian too and I find your arguments laughable and unrealistic. Why is that? Because a war is not as black and white as you are making it out to be. You can commit an excellent fighting machine for a particular mission but their is no substitute for qualitative factors like preparation, tactics and logistics if the enemy is better than you in these areas.

First, J-20 is not a mature and combat-proven platform at the moment. It is undergoing trails and further development. Any technical study of this aircraft will tell you that it does have its share of shortcomings and they are not easy to overcome. You, on the other hand, are expecting it to be an F-22 equivalent which is sounds like that your sources of information are sensational journalism at most.

Second, how many J-20 can China commit to a war with Taiwan at the moment or lets say 3 years later? Not many. And if China looses a few J-20 during the war, this will be a huge blow to its morale.

Third, you are expecting way too much from a single platform to achieve wonders in a war. China will have to commit much more than J-20 to achieve a breakthrough against Taiwan in a full-scale war. A simple reason is that Taiwan is an Island (so an invasion from the ground is not easy) and Taiwan has done extensive homework on how to utilize its geography and assets to its advantage during a war.

Fourth, never (ever) underestimate your enemy.

Finally, always respect the professionals. They may not be experts of every subject but they have experienced war first hand and understand its dynamics much better than any civilian. Thank you.

Sir you are absolutely right that current warfare is of net cnetric warfare and thats the reason i am more concerned on continous relaince on f16 as whatever asset we will induct it will take time to integrate ... so whatever the decision we are going we have to take it now ... now let me put some realities in front of you so that you can better shed light on that ...

India has been offerred a further advanced version of block V which was never on offer to us hence we are already in disadvantage ... if india choses to accept than we will no longer be able to further upgarde even if could somehow able to keep maintenance supply chain open...

If india choses to reject ... then f16 has no further orders hence no further development in the platform so in anycase f16 will cease to be frontline platform after a decade at max ...

In case of any war we will not be having any supplies of ammunitions and spares for f16 whereas india will continue to have supplies for mki atleast and probably for rafael as well ...

There is not a single week in which US do not slam us ... we destroyed our whole country ... lost 60 thousand people and still we listen to do more from usa ... then why do you except after they are gone from afghansitan there will sales to Pakistan ???. have you forget presseler ammendments ???

Su35 might not be battle proven than why soviet union was such a headach for usa ... this is all propaganda by western countries that russian tech is too inferrior ... there are differneces but not as much as they are being portrayed ...

Look bro! All this sensational journalism about latest Russian and Chinese stuff is giving us the impression that F-16 will be obsolete anytime soon. I can assure you that it will not be and PAF understands this reality very well too.

Even if the production of F-16 seizes for USAF and a few other states, this does not implies that its parts won't be developed for existing (and potential) customers who will continue to operate F-16 aircraft for years to come. Business is very important for revenue generation and keeping the industry relevant.

I fully understand that War on Terror was a very difficult path for us to walk on but it [is] in our best interests to tackle the menace of militancy and terrorism in the region. Pakistan has certainly bled a lot for this struggle (more-so than the US) but our sacrifices should not be in vain. And their is no turning back from it now.

Yes, our relations with the US are far from rosy but American assistance materializes for us from time-to-time and it has helped us a lot in developing our military capability and sustaining our economy. Many in Pakistan do not understand the value of such assistance because they continue to remember the bad stuff and are not aware of certain ground realities.

Regarding Russia being a headache for US; because of its huge stockpile of nuclear weapons and global strike capability. Americans will soundly defeat Russia in a conventional confrontation (I am not joking; even Russians are under no illusion about this in their professional assessments) but that huge stockpile of nuclear weapons is very difficult to take care of without a full-scale nuclear attack, and if a few land on American soil in response...