Indonesia eyes Eurofighters to check China’s threat

[Nike]

US will never allow it ... West Europe is Lockheed Martin's most important area of operations

West European since long operated their own Made fighter sometimes side by side with US Made fighter, the likes of Panavia Tornado, EF typhoon, Harrier, AMX international and Rafale operated alongside with F16 and F 18 is very common.

 

[nahtanbob]

US will never allow it ... West Europe is Lockheed Martin's most important area of operations

Well the Europeans built the Eurofighter Typhoon. Germany, France have very few American combat aircraft. They need to rope in UK or Italy.

 

[nahtanbob]

West European since long operated their own Made fighter sometimes side by side with US Made fighter, the likes of Panavia Tornado, EF typhoon, Harrier, AMX international and Rafale operated alongside with F16 and F 18 is very common.

I do not know about the Harrier
But the Jaguar is British-French joint project

 

[antonius123]

US will never allow it ... West Europe is Lockheed Martin's most important area of operations

But UK is developing tempest and France is developing FCAS, so is Russia with mig-41.

 

[antonius123]

This 300km+ BVR missiles give Chinese Combat Aircraft Advantage against their enemy in Long range Aerial Combat.

Imagine you getting shot without you knowing your enemy. Damn !

Exactly. This is what I am trying to tell him that F-16 Viper will be at disadvantage in BVR engagement against J-10C, same like during WVR since J-10C has TVC. Its proven with its winning during exercise where J-10C easily defeat Thailand Grippen C, and defeat China's SU-35.

 

[Reashot Xigwin]

Exactly. This is what I am trying to tell him that F-16 Viper will be at disadvantage in BVR engagement against J-10C, same like during WVR since J-10C has TVC. Its proven with its winning during exercise where J-10C easily defeat Thailand Grippen C, and defeat China's SU-35.

Viper have better radar range, better EW suite, better counter-measure.

The only thing J-10C are good at it's the only Chinese designed plane that doesn't suffers from numerous design issues. Thrust vectoring won't help you when you're locked on by sidewinder fired by trained pilot.

https://www.lockeedmartin.com/en-us...-technologically-advanced-4th-generation.html

 

[antonius123]

And this is supposed to be Taiwan's defensive flaw?

The reason I made no comment about it -- back then -- was because it was not applicable to what I was talking about. But if you want...

Why is that a 'bad' tactic? Because it was used in the 1940s? If you think so, then maybe you should have spend time serving in the PLA and have some real military education instead of trying to gleam nonsensical shit from Sinus Defense or Chinese language forums filled with ignorant fools.

So let us begin...

As all sides know, Taiwan have limited amphibious landing sites and that China do not have the element of surprise. So in order to have secure landings, China cannot destroy those landing sites, and that mean Taiwan forces should commit to close-in combat against PLA troops. Taiwan stationing forces at those sites actually protects them. The exercise's intention was to fight on the beaches. Where else? Allowing PLA troops to gain grounds farther inland? Is that what Sinus Defense said Taiwan would do? The unofficial and public consensus is that if Taiwanese forces successfully defended at least two landing sites, the invasion would be a failure.

So why should I challenge that video?

As far as this thread go, it looks like Asia may have been slowly but surely wakening up to the fact that China have no good intention for Asia. The Eurofighters WILL be a check against Chinese airpower in Asia.

In your mind: element of surprise that can be existing is only on which beach of many that enemy will land their troops? Element of surprise means: you dont know nor predict what kind of strategy/weapon/etc that enemy will conduct/use. If you know now then means it wont be a surprise anymore.

Also if Taiwan's troops can play hide & seek with manpads behind coral reef doesnt mean it will guarantee winning on Taiwan's side. As I said, China will land her tanks and troops after she has destroyed Taiwan's defence system - air, sea, and land at the first place. So most probably when China's tanks land, Taiwan will have barely tank & helicopter left anymore to defend her beaches.

Also since China will have LHA in operation soon, her landing can be protected by attack helicopters from sky. So it wont be that easy for Taiwan's troop to defend her beach.

 

[antonius123]

Viper have better radar range, better EW suite, better counter-measure.

How do you know Viper have better radar range, better EW suite etc? You have no idea about the J-10C radar & EW right?

Even so, the max range of the AAM that Viper bring (AIM-7 Sparrow) is only 85km, means even if your pilot has detected target 300km away, you need to wait until it get close to within 85km range to fire AAM.

In the meantime J-10C can lock and shoot Viper with PL-15 in range above 150km, means J-10C would win! First Shoot First Kill.

The only thing J-10C are good at it's the only Chinese designed plane that doesn't suffers from numerous design issues. Thrust vectoring won't help you when you're locked on by sidewinder fired by trained pilot.

https://www.lockeedmartin.com/en-us...-technologically-advanced-4th-generation.html

That is incorrect. I recommend you to read this:
https://militarywatchmagazine.com/a...le-engine-fighter-would-prevail-in-an-air-war

TVC may not be much helpful against sidewinder, but it will very much helpful to make J-10C lock F-16V first during WVR.

 

[gambit]

Today what do you think the CEP is?

Better than you do.

Do you really believe that the HK exercise is a must? Taiwan is not Iraq in the sense that Taiwan spent decades in preparing to engage China in an invasion. Mines, underwater obstacles, and artillery, just to name a few, that can make any amphibious landing far worse than what the Allies went thru in Overlord. The Taiwanese know better than the Chinese on the local conditions such as depths according to tides, sea bottom conditions, gradients (slopes) of all possible landing sites, and beach environment such as frontage, size, composition, and ideal exit points. So based on available public knowledge, those ideals amphibious landing sites are on the pointy ends of Taiwan, making coordination between Chinese forces difficult. The next problem for the PLA is the maximum possible size of the landing forces per site -- about battalion size or 500 soldiers. Ambushes and kill boxes galore will be waiting for PLA troops.

The US would be giving Taiwanese forces real time updates on the invasion fleet strait transit. The current artillery range is already half of the strait. With today's technology, the mobile 155 mm artillery guns will outmaneuver and survive China's air attacks and hit the invasion fleet. A single round on any troop carrier will render that vessel inop.

Resurrect that thread if you want, but just on the invasion component alone, 1970s technology can already credibly threaten Chinese forces.

 

[S10]

Better than you do.

Do you really believe that the HK exercise is a must? Taiwan is not Iraq in the sense that Taiwan spent decades in preparing to engage China in an invasion. Mines, underwater obstacles, and artillery, just to name a few, that can make any amphibious landing far worse than what the Allies went thru in Overlord. The Taiwanese know better than the Chinese on the local conditions such as depths according to tides, sea bottom conditions, gradients (slopes) of all possible landing sites, and beach environment such as frontage, size, composition, and ideal exit points. So based on available public knowledge, those ideals amphibious landing sites are on the pointy ends of Taiwan, making coordination between Chinese forces difficult. The next problem for the PLA is the maximum possible size of the landing forces per site -- about battalion size or 500 soldiers. Ambushes and kill boxes galore will be waiting for PLA troops.

The US would be giving Taiwanese forces real time updates on the invasion fleet strait transit. The current artillery range is already half of the strait. With today's technology, the mobile 155 mm artillery guns will outmaneuver and survive China's air attacks and hit the invasion fleet. A single round on any troop carrier will render that vessel inop.

Resurrect that thread if you want, but just on the invasion component alone, 1970s technology can already credibly threaten Chinese forces.

Interesting assumptions, except these glaring problems:

1. You assume China would launch an invasion without air and naval superiority.

2. You assume that Taiwan would have intact C3I assets to effectively coordinate its units in the field after being on the receiving end up relentless strikes.

3. You assume that Taiwan would still have situational awareness, American intel or not, against electronic warfare.

4. You assume that PLA would not extensively survey landing sites (if they have not obtained that information already) prior with recon units.

5. You assume PLA would not have armed drones overhead to suppress enemy movements in real time. If Taiwan mobilize its forces, more targets for the drones.

Theoretically I could set up a beautiful boxing combo against a prime Tyson and knock him out. Realistically I'll probably wake up in the hospital in a week's time. Assumptions are a dangerous thing, especially when you're a relic of an era that has long since passed.

 

[Reashot Xigwin]

How do you know Viper have better radar range, better EW suite etc? You have no idea about the J-10C radar & EW right? [emoji23]

Even so, the max range of the AAM that Viper bring (AIM-7 Sparrow) is only 85km, means even if your pilot has detected target 300km away, you need to wait until it get close to within 85km range to fire AAM.

In the meantime J-10C can lock and shoot Viper with PL-15 in range above 150km, means J-10C would win! First Shoot First Kill.




That is incorrect. I recommend you to read this:
https://militarywatchmagazine.com/a...le-engine-fighter-would-prevail-in-an-air-war

TVC may not be much helpful against sidewinder, but it will very much helpful to make J-10C lock F-16V first during WVR.

So do you. But considering China's technological inferiority compared to the US it's a simple observation that the avionics of the J-10C are not up to par with the Viper. This is an observable & objective fact.

While the Viper have the APG-68 which is a Fifth gen radar utilizing SABR technology.

https://www.northropgrumman.com/air...apg-83-aesa-for-the-f-16-and-legacy-aircraft/

And the Vipershield EW suite which have complete total protection from any form of threat which include radiowave.

https://www.harris.com/solution/viper-shield-analq-254v1-all-digital-electronic-warfare-suite

That & good old fucking disinfo (flare)

Not to mention but most importantly that Taiwan's pilots have NATO style training which already mean that the average Taiwanese pilot will already be better than their mainland counterpart.

Are we talking about 2D or 3D TVT?

 

[antonius123]

So do you. But considering China's technological inferiority compared to the US it's a simple observation that the avionics of the J-10C are not up to par with the Viper. This is an observable & objective fact.

No... it is not objective fact, instead it is an obsolete assumption.

You can't equate China 10 year ago with current China, it is arbitrary assumption; she has all things needed to produce tech the same level as western if not surpassing. I've given you example right? 5G, Maglev, Supercomputer, quantum satellite, AI, etc. You see how US are lagging in some area and on par in many areas.

China spend more on military tech r&d than civilian tech r&d, so if China can surpass in some civilian electronics (5G, etc), why can't she surpass US in avionics including AESA too? You can consider J-10C as a Huawei version while F-16V as Cisco version of jet fighters

So your evaluation is very subjective which is based on your obsolete assumption.

While the Viper have the APG-68 which is a Fifth gen radar utilizing SABR technology.

https://www.northropgrumman.com/air...apg-83-aesa-for-the-f-16-and-legacy-aircraft/

And the Vipershield EW suite which have complete total protection from any form of threat which include radiowave.

https://www.harris.com/solution/viper-shield-analq-254v1-all-digital-electronic-warfare-suite

How would APG-68 protect viper from PL-15 onslaught?
I've told you many times PL-15 is using AESA, means can't be jammed nor intercepted by EW system. Dont be so slow to grasp.

Basically: F-16 Viper is just 4+ generation, on the other hand J-10C is 4++ generation, means J-10C should be more sophisticated. Besides excel in EW, J-10C also has less radar signature than F-16V.

The F-16V’s alterations to the original design are relatively conservative. There are no reductions to the radar cross section or applications of stealth coatings and no improvements to the F110 engine's thrust have been made. Upgrades are restricted to avionics, with new cockpit displays, electronic warfare systems and an AESA radar all integrated. The fighter deploys the same AIM-120C missile as regular F-16 variants, although some reports indicate it could integrate AIM-120D missiles with a longer 180km range in future. The F-16V overall represents a cheaper idea for an ‘enhanced F-16’ to the F-16E - developed for the United Arab Emirates, the F-2 developed for Japan, and the F-21 concept currently being marketed to India - all of which have seen far more ambitious enhancements from high composite airframes and new more powerful engines.

There was not a single field in which the F-16 could boast superior capabilities over the J-10. Not only is the J-10 design more advanced, but the J-10C has seen more comprehensive improvements compared to the original design than the F-16V has relative to the original Fighting Falcon. These have included a reduced radar cross section, applications of stealth coatings, a greater use of composite materials a new more powerful AESA radar and integration of PL-15 air to air missiles.
https://militarywatchmagazine.com/a...le-engine-fighter-would-prevail-in-an-air-war​

So you see .... NONE single field F-16 could boast superior capabilities over the J-10 as you claim above

So forget with your dreaming Viper can take on J-10C, Viper is absolutely inferior.
If you compare F-35 with J-10C then yes F-35 can boast superiority in one or more field, but sorry not F-16V

Not to mention but most importantly that Taiwan's pilots have NATO style training which already mean that the average Taiwanese pilot will already be better than their mainland counterpart.

Are we talking about 2D or 3D TVT?

It is just assumption. If you claim that US senior pilots is more experienced than PLAAF, I could believe; but if you claim Taiwan, sorry it is just your own belief.

J-10C has 3D TVC. Not only that, its TWR (thrust to weight ratio: > 1.15) is the greatest among existing fighter plane, better than F-16V (1.096).

Th J-10 retains one of the highest thrust/weight ratios in the world as a result of its extremely light weight and powerful engine - standing at 1.15 for the J-10A and likely even higher for the C variant due to its greater use of composite materials. No U.S. fighters currently in service, including twin engine platforms such as the F-18 and F-22, are capable of matching this. The F-35 by contrast, though deploying an extremely powerful F135 engine, is extremely bulky which gives it a high wing loading and a thrust/weight ratio of just 0.87.
https://militarywatchmagazine.com/a...n-the-pla-s-j-10c-contend-with-america-s-f-35​

 

[gambit]

Assumptions are a dangerous thing, especially when you're a relic of an era that has long since passed.

Correct. And it is ironic that you do not recognize that you assumed as well.

Like I told your friend, now am going to educate you...

The air war planners of Desert Storm turned their experience towards Taiwan: What can airpower do to support an invasion of Taiwan -- if it was the US who is going to do the invasion.

For Desert Storm, we made a list of 700 'important' targets, but we attacked only 1/10th that were reclassified as 'critical', and we attacked them for 40 days/nights. For Taiwan, we ID-ed about 1200 'important' targets and reclassified nearly 1/2 as 'critical'. Think about that for a moment. If the US go after Taiwan, a geographically smaller country than Iraq, in order to secure an amphibious landing, the US would have to hit nearly 600 targets.

As if that is not bad enough, China have -- at best -- a %20 window during the year -- minus the winter months -- to invade Taiwan. Minus the winter months means less 3 months. That leave 9 months to find a suitable weather window for an invasion. That mean Taiwan will know down to the week -- if not the day -- when an invasion will launch. At best a %20 window? Realistically, more like %15. What is %15 of 9 months? We are looking at Dec - Feb as impossible. So that leave Mar to early Nov or rounded figure of 240 days. Ten percent of 240 days is 24 days. Do you really think China can surprise Taiwan when both sides know an invasion is possible within only 24 days, give or take a couple days?

You speak of air and naval superiority? Was that supposed to impress me? The US bombed about 70 targets in Iraq, but over Taiwan, we estimated we would have to bomb about 600. We bombed 70 targets for 40 days/nights. How long for 600 targets? You can bring up DF-whatever missile all you want, but China is not the US and you do not have the resources for 70 targets, let alone 600, for 40 days/nights. Taiwan is not Iraq and the Taiwanese will be able to put a defense that WILL BE qualitatively better than Iraqis did. You want to have air and naval superiority...oooohh...impressive words...Then China will have to go nuclear over Taiwan.

What I said above are not assumptions. I have one war and solid meteorological data to back me up. It is YOU and your fellow Chinese who have been making assumptions.

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

Correct. And it is ironic that you do not recognize that you assumed as well.

Like I told your friend, now am going to educate you...

The air war planners of Desert Storm turned their experience towards Taiwan: What can airpower do to support an invasion of Taiwan -- if it was the US who is going to do the invasion.

For Desert Storm, we made a list of 700 'important' targets, but we attacked only 1/10th that were reclassified as 'critical', and we attacked them for 40 days/nights. For Taiwan, we ID-ed about 1200 'important' targets and reclassified nearly 1/2 as 'critical'. Think about that for a moment. If the US go after Taiwan, a geographically smaller country than Iraq, in order to secure an amphibious landing, the US would have to hit nearly 600 targets.

As if that is not bad enough, China have -- at best -- a %20 window during the year -- minus the winter months -- to invade Taiwan. Minus the winter months means less 3 months. That leave 9 months to find a suitable weather window for an invasion. That mean Taiwan will know down to the week -- if not the day -- when an invasion will launch. At best a %20 window? Realistically, more like %15. What is %15 of 9 months? We are looking at Dec - Feb as impossible. So that leave Mar to early Nov or rounded figure of 240 days. Ten percent of 240 days is 24 days. Do you really think China can surprise Taiwan when both sides know an invasion is possible within only 24 days, give or take a couple days?

You speak of air and naval superiority? Was that supposed to impress me? The US bombed about 70 targets in Iraq, but over Taiwan, we estimated we would have to bomb about 600. We bombed 70 targets for 40 days/nights. How long for 600 targets? You can bring up DF-whatever missile all you want, but China is not the US and you do not have the resources for 70 targets, let alone 600, for 40 days/nights. Taiwan is not Iraq and the Taiwanese will be able to put a defense that WILL BE qualitatively better than Iraqis did. You want to have air and naval superiority...oooohh...impressive words...Then China will have to go nuclear over Taiwan.

What I said above are not assumptions. I have one war and solid meteorological data to back me up. It is YOU and your fellow Chinese who have been making assumptions.

91% of the munitions dropped in the Gulf War were dumb bombs, 9% were guided, yet the 9% of guided weapons were responsible for 75% of successful hits. Most munitions fired in the Gulf War did little damage. That is why they needed to be bombed for 40 days: USAF just kept missing.

Here's some more differences:

1. US Navy destroyers and cruisers could not cover all of Iraq under their air defenses, but PLAN 052C/D and 055 can cover all of Taiwan with their air defense radars and SAMs.

2. US did not make use of bases in Turkey and attacked Iraq only from one side: Saudi Arabia and the Persian Gulf. But PRC is close to Taiwan on 2 sides - both north and west, with rocket artillery such as WS-2 having sufficient range to hit them from a parking lot in mainland China.

3. US did not use its tactical SRBMs and IRBMs, and launched only ~280 Tomahawks during the Gulf War. Taiwan claims PLA has 2000+ SRBMs pointed at Taiwan with representative CEP of ~10 m (see 1). 2000+ SRBM alone cannot suppress or destroy 70 targets? That's not even counting PLAAF and PLAN ground attack cruise missiles and laser guided bombs, or PLAGF rocket artillery.

This is leaving out all the economic damage that the PLA can do to Taiwan.

 

[Liaslia]

It's time for regime change in Jakharta. PLA marines can attack Jakharta by sea after softening the coastal defenses with a bombing campaign. Type 099 tanks can roll right into the presidential palace and depose their joker of the leader.

China will take over Asia