Taiwan begins F-16V modernisation effort

[UKBengali]

@LeGenD:

I won't even bother replying to you as you have absolutely no value to me and should know how to
talk in an appropriate manner that case.

 

[LeGenD]

@LeGenD:

I won't even bother replying to you as you have absolutely no value to me and should know how to
talk in an appropriate manner that case.

I should know how to talk in an appropriate manner? Who the hell do you think you are? Did I scold you or something? I addressed your argument in a polite and respectable manner.

You should watch your attitude or stay away from community discussions.

 

[Penguin]

@LeGenD:

I won't even bother replying to you as you have absolutely no value to me and should know how to
talk in an appropriate manner that case.

Oh, what a looser-response: can't be bothered to respond to argument?

 

[UKBengali]

Oh, what a looser-response: can't be bothered to respond to argument?

It is not a case of not responding to an argument. Like I say, he has built up zero value with me and so why should I spend time replying when he cannot address me in an appropriate manner? If he had built up some value with me then I would have replied.

I will highlight one part of his argument that makes it so obvious that he is not interested in serious debate but more a case of pushing his own agenda. He says that it is not just about weapons but tactics, leadership etc. So he assumes that Taiwan must be better than China then? In the absence of having deep knowledge of both the Chinese and Taiwanese military's we can only assume an equal level of competency in this field.

PS - Notice how our friend @gambit has chosen not to counter my points as to why the lessons of Vietnam can no longer be applied, to an era where 4th generation fighters like F-16 have nowhere to hide from airborne radar or ram-jet powered BVRAAMs.

 

[Penguin]

why should I spend time replying when he cannot address me in an appropriate manner

For the benefit of us all, please indicate what you would consider an appropriate manner, and how that particular poster's post does not conform to normal standards of polite discussion.

I will highlight one part of his argument that makes it so obvious that he is not interested in serious debate but more a case of pushing his own agenda. He says that it is not just about weapons but tactics, leadership etc. So he assumes that Taiwan must be better than China then? In the absence of having deep knowledge of both the Chinese and Taiwanese military's we can only assume an equal level of competency in this field.

Saying something is not about weapons alone but also about tactics and leadership does not automatically mean an assumption that one country must be better than another (and my use here of one country and another is not intended to imply any position with respect to the issue of PRC/ROC relations). It simply means critical factors are left unexamined. That YOU interprete it differently says something about your basic assumptions. An equal level of competency does not mean that (aspects of) tactics and leadership don't differ and that some may be more effective than others (either way, there is no implication towards PRC or ROC). On the whole one would have to assess how many ++ and how many -- each state gets in this respect.

PS - Notice how our friend @gambit has chosen not to counter my points as to why the lessons of Vietnam can no longer be applied, to an era where 4th generation fighters like F-16 have nowhere to hide from airborne radar or ram-jet powered BVRAAMs.

Ramjet powered BVRAAMs and airborne radar are nothing new and while making today's world different from that of the 60s/70s it doesn't mean a fool-proof kill-environment has been established. Mach 4+ long range (100-150km) BVRAAMs have been around since R-27ER and AIM-54. Keep in mind, for example, that a major issue with BVR is still unreliable IFF technology.

As for if, how and when Gambit responds, that's up to him. You may also interprete a lack of response to mean that he has no time or energy to waste on pointless rounds of debate and has chosen to spend it on more important things. It doesn't necessarily mean he has no reponse.

 

[gambit]

As for if, how and when Gambit responds, that's up to him. You may also interprete a lack of response to mean that he has no time or energy to waste on pointless rounds of debate and has chosen to spend it on more important things. It doesn't necessarily mean he has no reponse.

Mr. Bengali goes after Taiwan not because Taiwan have done anything to his country -- either of residence or of birth -- but simply because the US supports Taiwan and he is anti-US. With this mentality, there is no sufficient amount of evidence, technical and/or else, that will convince him of the errors of his arguments. So yes, it is a waste of time, yours and mine.

 

[UKBengali]

@Penguin

Unfortunately you have also fallen into the trap
of agreeing with people just on the basis they hold
a title and so must be right.

 

[Penguin]

@Penguin

Unfortunately you have also fallen into the trap
of agreeing with people just on the basis they hold
a title and so must be right.

Yes, I must be an idiot that can't think for himself.

 

[UKBengali]

Yes, I must be an idiot that can't think for himself.

Let us leave it as this will get nowhere.

 

[Penguin]

Let us leave it as this will get nowhere.

OH, you finally noticed?

 

[gambit]

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.

Let us review what I often said on this forum...

- Air Dominance. The ability of an air force to compel other air forces into subordinate postures.

- Air Superiority. The ability of an air force to achieve control of contested airspace, repeatedly if necessary, and if there are losses, those losses would not pose a statistical deterrence to that ability.

- Air Supremacy. He flies, he dies.

Regarding the first -- Air Dominance -- the PLAAF is on the cusp of this status in Asia, but let us be generous and push the PLAAF over the line and say it is that status. The major issue is that this status for the PLAAF came from sheer numbers, which, let us be clear is a legitimate factor, but numbers alone is not enough. If US air power entered the picture, that status will transfer to the US even if US air power entered the area in lesser numbers. The reason is combat experience, an equally significant factor to numbers. Put it simply, even if you are physically larger than your opponent, if he 5-0 but you are 0, the wise thing to do is back off. What is the combat record of US air power ? It came from WW II, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, and Yugoslavia. In each, there were actually shots fired, bombs dropped, and lives lost.

Regarding the second -- Air Superiority -- the PLAAF is at best uncertain. What is that statistical deterrence ?

Does it mean if you lose 1 while the other guy lose 3, you have the advantage ? Not really. Not if all you have is 2. Lose 1 out of 2 and you have no choice but to concede the battlefield. It does not matter if the other guy have 3 readied to lose to your remaining 1. If both of you lose all, that airspace remains contested because no one controls it. In contested airspace where no side can field a clear advantage -- SAM rules. The few fighters will be used to patrol friendly airspaces, nothing more.

That statistical deterrence calculations gets more complex and simulations done by US have hinted that it is not always favorable to the side with the superior numbers if the other side have compensating factors to its lower numbers of deployable aircrafts.

For example...

If it take three J-11s to shoot down one F-35, that means there must be at least a 5-1 numerical advantage for the J-11 in order for the J-11 fleet to secure that statistical deterrence, meaning even with losses, the J-11 fleet will eventually drive the F-35 opponents from that contested airspace. So if there are 20 F-35s, there better be five times more J-11s available to fight and take losses per combat engagement.

But has there been any combat engagements between the J-11 and F-35 ? None. So what this means is that commanders must calculate on how much forces can he deploy based upon estimations on the capabilities of forces, his own and his opponent's. If he underestimate his opponent, whether from poor intelligence about his opponent or from his arrogance, he will be trapped by that statistical deterrence, meaning his losses will be such that he will be forced to withdraw from that contested airspace.

Let us speculate that the PLAAF can field 20 J-20s over Taiwanese airspace and let us say that the only opponents the J-20 pilots will face are Taiwanese F-16s. The ROCAF's F-16 inventory is 143 but conservatively let us say 120 combat readied fighters. That is a 6-1 numerical advantage for the ROCAF. Even if the PLAAF estimate the J-20 to have a 5-1 kill ratio, meaning it takes five F-16s to shoot down one J-20, all it takes are four to five J-20 losses for the PLAAF to withdraw the J-20 from Taiwanese airspace. Common sense dictated that withdrawal.

Statistical deterrence calculation for US air commanders is far less problematic due to our actual combat experience. We know what each platform can do under what combat conditions. What we learned in past air campaigns we incorporated into our training and disseminated to allies who flies those same platforms, and we did it far better to our allies than the Soviets/Russians did to their allies. THAT fact we learned from post Soviet collapse.

PLAAF commanders are not stupid. The J-20 is not combat ready. The F-16 is. And psychologically speaking, the ROCAF is just as prepared to fight for the independence of Taiwan as the PLAAF pilots are prepared for the conquest of Taiwan. Without control of Taiwanese airspace, China will lose the overall war.

 

[gambit]

Much hype have been made about how the PLA would -- not merely could -- defeat Taiwan's defense via ballistic missiles. This hype is more revealing of the person's ignorance about war in general and ballistic missiles in specific.

The ballistic type of weaponry, which includes artillery, was designed to be an area weapon. This begs the question of what is an 'area' weapon in the first place, and what is the other type of weapon, the 'point' weapon.

An area weapon is for an area type target. Correspondingly, an point weapon is for a point type weapon. Which make which type ?

The precision level of a weapon directs the categorization of the target type. The corollary is that the durability, or resistance to being rendered a non-contributor to the war effort, of the target directs what kind of weapon to be used against that target.

An excellent example is the runway denial operation against an airbase.

An airbase, with its prominent network of runways and pathways, would be categorized as an area target. There are many individual targets inside an airbase that supports its main function -- to provide air force combatants -- that make an airbase among the most difficult of targets to render a non-contributor to the enemy's war efforts.

This is how much the WW II era B-29 bomber can carry...

http://www.ww2warbirds.net/ww2htmls/boeib29.html

Up to 20,000 lb of bombs in two internal weapons bays rated at 10,000 lb each. Typical load was:

• 4 × 4,000 lb bombs, or
• 8 × 2,000 lb bombs, or
• 12 × 1,000 lb bombs, or
• 40 × 500 lb bombs, or
• 50 × 300 lb bombs, or
• 80 × 100 lb bombs, or
• 1 × nuclear bomb

A single B-29 flight is a sortie. Assume a mission load of 40 x 500 lb bombs against an enemy airbase.

This was the typical result of such a day's mission...

RAF St. Eval survived the Luftwaffe's bombardment relatively capable of being a continuing contributor to Britain's war efforts. Most bombs missed the desired targets -- the runways. Post war analysis have most bombs missed the desired targets, whether those desired targets were runways, bridges, troop emplacements, dams, or ships. It took hundreds of bombers (sorties), each delivering dozens of individual bombs, over several days to render an airbase a non-contributor to the enemy's war efforts.

A nuclear warhead is a weapon of mass destruction in technical, not just rhetorical, language. The durability of an airbase requires such a wide area weapon in order to render that airbase a non-contributor in one pass.

A laser guided conventional bomb/missile is a point weapon because of its precision level. It can be used to destroy one aircraft on the ramp, but that still would not render that airbase a non-contributor to the war efforts.

What this mean is that in order to render ONE airbase a non-contributor to Taiwan's war efforts, the PLAAF would have to send either hundreds of conventional bombs/missiles or one nuclear bomb/missile.

An area weapon is for when there is a need to destroy a large target in as minimal time and effort as possible. Usually mean one pass and one munition.

A point weapon is for when there is a need to destroy one target that is a member of a larger body in as minimal time and effort as possible. Usually mean one pass and one munition.

The absence of nuclear weapons back in WW II resulted with many point weapons over days or even months to destroy one large target. In later conflicts, it was the avoidance of nuclear weapons, not the lack of them, that resulted in many point weapons used against one large target.

This is what the US did against a Serbian airbase...

The precision level of individual bombs/missiles reduced the time and efforts required to render an airbase a non-contributor to the war effort. But for the example above, unless the runway system was completely destroyed, Obvra could return to being a contributor. The US did not erred. There were no needs to render Obra permanently out of action. An operation time gap for Obvra was needed to support other NATO actions elsewhere and six bombs denied Obvra the use of its runway just long enough.

So the problems for China regarding war against Taiwan are clear.

Unlike the US and NATO who did not seek to subdue and occupy Serbia, China NEED to subdue and occupy Taiwan. Unlike the US and NATO who did not want Serbia even temporarily, China want Taiwan for perpetuity. That means literally all of Taiwanese defense capabilities must be destroyed, not merely rendered being non-contributors. China have the capability to do just that at this time -- nuclear.

 

[jhungary]

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?


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


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.

I stopped arguing with him a long time ago.....lol

Would have thought he lost interest and died out, but apprently, he did not...

 

[jhungary]

@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 ...

Why do you think Cruise Missile and "Satellite Assisted Weaponry" would have been useful in this scenario?

During WW2, Germany bombard British Airfield almost twice daily during battle of britain, does that took out the RAF? Nope, the answer is simple, you don't need all of the runway, all of the aircraft to take off your sorties. And for each trip, you will need a turn around time, how many missile you can fire at the same site before it to ohave been detected and destroyed?

Missile is not some magic weapon, you cannot fire it and hope it destroy their target and rendering it unusable, the only way you can render something permenantly unusable is when you occupied it with your ground troop. Airfield can be repair within 6 hours, and you don't need to repair the whole airfield, just the bit that you need in order to keep getting aircraft airborne.

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 ...

Nobody said in reality China will lose a fight to Taiwan, the question is always HOW MUCH CHINA NEED TO PAY before achieving such feat?

Any Military Science graduate will tell you this, for an island defence, if you do not have local air superiority, you will need a 10:1 ratio to overcome the garrison, that's 10 attacker to every defender. Being an Island gave you a very deep strategic depth, you can lob missile day and night but in reality, it doesn't do much as missile is a point to point weapon, and do you know how many "point" make up the Taiwanese coastline?

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 ...

Again, why?

You are talking about an attacking force engaging in a local force, let me give you a hint, During Vietnam War, US is about 30 times stronger than North Vietnam, and even the US cannot substain a 10 years war with Vietnam, how long, you would think China can hold out with a peer or near peer enemy?

While China is strong, it have a strong army, it have a strong airforce or navy, but what you got does not equate to what you can send to a battlefield. You have totally discounted Chinese's logistical capability in a sense, just because they have 1100 fighters, that does not mean they could have 1100 fighter on Taiwanese soil 24/7.

Let take the strongest mIlitary on earth at this point, the United States Military, both sealift command and airlift command can contribute to 25% US Force mobilization. Do you know the Chinese Sea/Air Lift Capability and how much they can afford?

https://defence.pk/threads/military-logistic.297695/
https://defence.pk/threads/warfighting-capability-and-power-projection.361655/
https://defence.pk/threads/a-brief-view-on-combat-logistic-support.356284/

Here are a few article I wrote about battlefield control, it may do you some good for underrstanding the "true" situation in war. Not just what you think it would happen