Indonesia eyes Eurofighters to check China’s threat

[Reashot Xigwin]

You have no answer to the fact that Huawei, a fully civilian company, can produce civilian phased array antenna for 5G. Instead you list some company names without even understanding what AESA radar is.

I'll take that as a concession that you have no idea what you're talking about.

"fully civilian" yeah....

If you don't know anything it's okay to admit you're wrong mate.

 

[gambit]

I did. You ran. Here's the thread of record. https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/taiwan-simulates-chinese-invasion.676344/page-4

You ended by saying that I showed only contempt for Taiwanese forces, that there was tribal knowledge involved, and that Taiwan could keep the PLA off-balance.

I saw that as concession, because that is essentially saying - "but they have a secret ace up their sleeve". You never apply this logic to the PLAAF and PLAN though.

The other thing is that you could not contest videos of Taiwan's own Han Kuang exercises, where they show 1940's tactics of lining up tanks along the beach in the open and their air force/navy sallying into the strait to fight a decisive battle against the PLAN in the open ocean.

I ran? Bullshit.

What you could not challenge were the FACTS that China do not have the element of surprise, that the US do not have to be in the strait in order to protect Taiwan's flanks, and that the in order to successfully complete an invasion Taiwan would have to be destroyed to near nuclear level. There is no 'secret ace' anywhere but established history. Your contempt for Taiwan's forces was evident in the sense that you continually brought up their age vintage, never mind that if we applied the same logic to the PLA, there was no way the PLAAF could stand against US, and yet all of you continually insisted that US airpower would struggle against the PLAAF. Logic and reason works both ways, pal.

So yes, you could not challenge what I put forth. Not one credible bit.

 

[gambit]

You have no answer to the fact that Huawei, a fully civilian company, can produce civilian phased array antenna for 5G. Instead you list some company names without even understanding what AESA radar is.

Phased array antennas have been around for DECADES. All those companies listed in post 149? Clue for you -- they are civilian. So what make Huawei's ability to make phased arrays so special? Nothing, except that China got that technology mostly by crook.

I'll take that as a concession that you have no idea what you're talking about.

Of course you would see everyone's arguments as 'concession' even if you are wrong.

 

[gambit]

The other thing is that you could not contest videos of Taiwan's own Han Kuang exercises, where they show 1940's tactics of lining up tanks along the beach in the open...

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.

 

[antonius123]

Then what makes Chinese AESA any better?

F-16V actually have a suites design to sends successive pulse to detect LPIR. So again so what?

If you can't tell the differences between military & civilian technology then you are the one that need to learn more.

I am not saying chinese AESA is better.
I am not saying aesa tech is the same as 5G or maglev or supercomputer tech.

I am saying that your assumption that chinese AESA quality should be lower is FALSE. I am saying do not underestimated their rnd capability as demonstrated by their numerous tech/products.

You are too dense to comprehend statements.

 

[antonius123]

PL-15 Missile with 300km+ Range
View attachment 657297 View attachment 657298

PL-15

One of the most outstanding weaknesses of the Su-35 relative to new Chinese AESA radar equipped fighters such as the J-10C, J-11BG, J-16 and J-20 is the limited capabilities of its air to air missiles. The R-77 was the first active radar guided missile developed for Russian fighter-sized aircraft, and while it compares favourably with the American AIM-120C and Chinese PL-12 with a heavier warhead and longer range its performance is very limited compared to newer U.S. and Chinese designs. While the American AIM-120D introduced in 2014 was intended to provide an advantage over rival designs for at least a decade, and had a formidable 160-180km range, the Chinese PL-15 notably outperformed it by a considerable Martin. The new Chinese missile not only has a much longer range, between 250 and 300km, as well as a heavier warhead, but is also guided by an AESA rather than a passive radar. This makes the missile much more difficult to jam, allows it to better lock onto stealth aircraft at longer ranges and overall provides superior reliability to the American and Russian designs. The signifiant capability gap between the Su-35’s air to air missiles and the PL-15 is thought to be the primary cause behind the Russian fighter’s poor performance in combat stimulations, and equipping it with theses or similar missiles is vital to prevent it falling behind as a growing proportion of China’s fighter fleet is equipped with the new missiles.
https://militarywatchmagazine.com/a...-s-russian-built-fighters-from-falling-behind

 

[Daniel808]

PL-15

One of the most outstanding weaknesses of the Su-35 relative to new Chinese AESA radar equipped fighters such as the J-10C, J-11BG, J-16 and J-20 is the limited capabilities of its air to air missiles. The R-77 was the first active radar guided missile developed for Russian fighter-sized aircraft, and while it compares favourably with the American AIM-120C and Chinese PL-12 with a heavier warhead and longer range its performance is very limited compared to newer U.S. and Chinese designs. While the American AIM-120D introduced in 2014 was intended to provide an advantage over rival designs for at least a decade, and had a formidable 160-180km range, the Chinese PL-15 notably outperformed it by a considerable Martin. The new Chinese missile not only has a much longer range, between 250 and 300km, as well as a heavier warhead, but is also guided by an AESA rather than a passive radar. This makes the missile much more difficult to jam, allows it to better lock onto stealth aircraft at longer ranges and overall provides superior reliability to the American and Russian designs. The signifiant capability gap between the Su-35’s air to air missiles and the PL-15 is thought to be the primary cause behind the Russian fighter’s poor performance in combat stimulations, and equipping it with theses or similar missiles is vital to prevent it falling behind as a growing proportion of China’s fighter fleet is equipped with the new missiles.
https://militarywatchmagazine.com/a...-s-russian-built-fighters-from-falling-behind

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 !

 

[TheTruth]

Maybe it's time for China to be a normal country and raise its military spending to 3.5% or 4% of GDP

 

[nahtanbob]

too many drama in Indonesia fighter acquisition



So far only US can attack us like what they did to Iraq and also with the assumption that Australia will let US to use Darwin as their military operation base.

Why would US attack Indonesia ? You are too large to begin with. Even with all the provocations US never attack Iran

 

[nahtanbob]

Honestly just the US and China ... Russia cannot even successfully develop a 5th gen stealth fighter with their Su-57. The 6th gen race will be primarily between the US versus China.

If the West European countries can pool their resources they could build a 6th generation aircraft

 

[Nike]

Why would US attack Indonesia ? You are too large to begin with. Even with all the provocations US never attack Iran

Just his dreams

If the West European countries can pool their resources they could build a 6th generation aircraft

Actually the development of next gen fighter spearheaded by USAF, USNAVY, China and European consortium.

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

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.

What do you mean 'destroy' the landing sites? The sites don't have to be destroyed, just hostile forces lined up in a neat stationary row.

They're not following the force preservation doctrine you stated in #47 here.

You also conveniently leave out the part where their navy and air force tries to engage in a decisive battle in the middle of the strait.

 

[gambit]

What do you mean 'destroy' the landing sites? The sites don't have to be destroyed, just hostile forces lined up in a neat stationary row.

They're not following the force preservation doctrine you stated in #47 here.

You also conveniently leave out the part where their navy and air force tries to engage in a decisive battle in the middle of the strait.

I mean it is CHINA -- not Taiwan -- who cannot attack those landing sites.

The HK exercise was intended to have a 'force-on-force' battle IN THE EVENT OF AN AMPHIBIOUS LANDING. The exercise is a COMPONENT of a larger whole. Just in case you do not know the meaning of the word 'component', here it is...

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/component

Other related words to describe the HK exercise are: element, factor, or contribution.

Same idea with meeting PLA forces, on sea and in air, in the strait. Taiwanese forces do not have to meet Chinese forces head-on. Oblique attacks can be enough to slow advancement or even destroy critical parts of the invasion.

Get it?

This is why I said Operation Overlord is better than Desert Storm as applicable to a Taiwan invasion.

The problem with debating issues like this with no experience people like you is that you tends to grasp onto a single item as if that is the end-all. If a tank have the bigger gun, it will will. If a jet have faster engine, it will win. If a ship can run merely 1 kt faster, it will win. And so on...And on...And on...

Sheeesshhh...

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

I mean it is CHINA -- not Taiwan -- who cannot attack those landing sites.

The HK exercise was intended to have a 'force-on-force' battle IN THE EVENT OF AN AMPHIBIOUS LANDING. The exercise is a COMPONENT of a larger whole. Just in case you do not know the meaning of the word 'component', here it is...

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/component

Other related words to describe the HK exercise are: element, factor, or contribution.

Same idea with meeting PLA forces, on sea and in air, in the strait. Taiwanese forces do not have to meet Chinese forces head-on. Oblique attacks can be enough to slow advancement or even destroy critical parts of the invasion.

Get it?

This is why I said Operation Overlord is better than Desert Storm as applicable to a Taiwan invasion.

The problem with debating issues like this with no experience people like you is that you tends to grasp onto a single item as if that is the end-all. If a tank have the bigger gun, it will will. If a jet have faster engine, it will win. If a ship can run merely 1 kt faster, it will win. And so on...And on...And on...

Sheeesshhh...

I did not say that ROC forces were disadvantaged solely because they had fewer planes with AESA radar, or because they have a WW2 submarine fleet, or that they had 1970's surface navy, or that they won't have the initiative in the air war, or that they have no strategic recon capabilities such as satellites or spy planes. It's that they have an overall vast inferiority in situational awareness and performance.

You say it's like Operation Overlord. Operation Overlord was in WW2 where 32% of bombs were within 100 meters. Today what do you think the CEP is?

There was another amphibious invasion in the same time era as Operation Overlord. It's the Battle of Inchon and it was over for North Korea in 4 days, despite North Korea having conquered almost the entire Korean Peninsula at the time.

 

[Figaro]

If the West European countries can pool their resources they could build a 6th generation aircraft

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