Indonesia eyes Eurofighters to check China’s threat

[bolo]

Why don't the mod ban this 12 year old Feng Leng kid ?This guy repeats the same shit.

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

Did North Vietnam 'conquered' the US? Did the NVA actually defeated the US military? No to both.

What you failed to understand is that airpower -- at this time -- remains largely a supporting cast member to the final act of ground control. To date, only the US came close to having its airpower being the arbiter of a war. I will admit I used 'close' loosely. Airpower is temporary while ground control is as permanent as we can get, so what this mean is that air superiority over contested airspace is quickly irrelevant in the absence of a surface follow thru. In the case of Taiwan, that surface follow thru is a successful amphibious operation.

Taiwan have only one objective -- defeat the amphibious invasion. Nothing more. Taiwan have been -- in the eyes of the world -- an independent country no matter what China say. With the defeat of China's invasion, that unspoken perception will slowly manifest into diplomatic reality.

We'll see then. US still kept no-fly zones over Iraq for 10 years after the Gulf War, showing that its air superiority did not fade, even when its ground forces withdrew.

 

[gambit]

We'll see then. US still kept no-fly zones over Iraq for 10 years after the Gulf War, showing that its air superiority did not fade, even when its ground forces withdrew.

Iraq had no allies. Taiwan have US.

Iraq defeated no one while in this hypothetical situation, Taiwan defeated China's invasion fleet.

Iraq continued to have an economy. Taiwan in this hypothetical situation will have more.

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

Iraq had no allies. Taiwan have US.

Iraq defeated no one while in this hypothetical situation, Taiwan defeated China's invasion fleet.

Iraq continued to have an economy. Taiwan in this hypothetical situation will have more.

PLAN wouldn't launch the invasion fleet if Taiwan had even the slightest possibility of defeating it, thus robbing them of the victory. They'd never know whether they could actually do it.

Meanwhile in such a conflict TSMC, Formosa Plastics, UMC, Mediatek, Asus, etc will all burn, 95% of their power would be cut (just like Iraq and Yugoslavia) and their bridges/airports/harbors will be destroyed. They'll lose both their assets and much of their ability to rebuild said assets. They'll also lose most of their air force and navy. How much of an economy will they have after that?

 

[gambit]

PLAN wouldn't launch the invasion fleet if Taiwan had even the slightest possibility of defeating it, thus robbing them of the victory. They'd never know whether they could actually do it.

That secondary victory have lasted for decades. Si vis pacem, para bellum. The Taiwanese will always be prepared.

 

[ToddBing]

Iraq had no allies. Taiwan have US.

Iraq defeated no one while in this hypothetical situation, Taiwan defeated China's invasion fleet.

Iraq continued to have an economy. Taiwan in this hypothetical situation will have more.

LoL,US is really good at betrayed allies.
Not mention kurds who betrayeded by US two times, guess how many time US betrayed ROC in history?
In 1931,when Japan invade ROC,US didn't denounced this aggression, but provide strategic resources to Japan.
In 1949, US navy retreated from Qingdao before PLA came.
In 1978,US sever diplomatic relations with ROC.

How lucky ROC has this good ally.

 

[Reashot Xigwin]

LOL you are still densed. [emoji38]

Of course making handphone (and also supercomputer, maglev, tianwen, beidou, quantum satellite) is not the same as making AESA you clown, but all require the same .... "R&D". This China leadership in many technology fronts show how strong China R&D is. Thats why we can safe assume that China AESA must be as good as her 5G, Maglev, Supercomputer, etc due to China's strong R&D. [emoji23]

That is plausible assumption, rather than your stupid and ignorant assumption that China always remain making low quality tech forever and for a demanding buyer.



The article is very clear about J-10C excellence over F-16 Viper.

Find this sentence in the article that I quote above:

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.​

Dont you understand what it means? The other sentences explain in more detail why J-10 is more advance.

People like you is lacking IQ severely obviously




LOL. Another assumption of ignorance with logical fallacy [emoji23]

It is same claim that F-16 is better than Rafale/Typhoon/F-22 because many airforce around the world buy F-16 than those planes.

You need to understand that there are many factors play for decision to buy air fighter, such as: politics, political tie, commonalities, price, after-sales. Many airforce buy F-16 because of US influence (politics) + price + commonality.

If China R&D is any good then why do they keep getting caught trying to steal other country's technology?

> China R&D being the best

> China stealing other's people technology to make up for the lack of R&D

Pick one!

Can you tell me what makes the J-10C excel over the Viper? Because I can tell 1 reason that it's not, on the ground that the SABR radar that the viper have is a fifth gen radar. The same one on an F-35.

This what I meant by lack of critical thinking. You just believe everything at first glance because it affirms your belief. Use your brain!

oh no you don't get to weasel your way out of this. You claimed that the J-10C are superior to the viper then why would other country especially the one neighboring china even buying it in large bulk even if it's inferior to the one China have & Japan especially even goes as far to make their own version of the plane called Viper Zero? It as if they disregard your article because it's not substantiated in any way.

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

Can you tell me what makes the J-10C excel over the Viper? Because I can tell 1 reason that it's not, on the ground that the SABR radar that the viper have is a fifth gen radar. The same one on an F-35.

@gambit I welcome your radar expertise. Can you tell us what a so called "5th generation" radar is, and how it differs from other AESA radars?

 

[antonius123]

If China R&D is any good then why do they keep getting caught trying to steal other country's technology?

> China R&D being the best

> China stealing other's people technology to make up for the lack of R&D

Pick one!

Dont be narrow-minded.
First: most of them are merely "accusation" without solid evidence.
Second: stealing is sometimes still done by developed nations or by high tech company as well, in order to be ahead of competitors. This is an example:
https://www.ft.com/content/ba9f1cce-48c7-11ea-aeb3-955839e06441
https://www.politico.com/story/2014/05/france-intellectual-property-theft-107020
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_espionage
Third: maybe China stole many tech in the past, but just a few recently as they have achieved on par in many areas, including radar and avionics.
Fourth: stealing tech sometimes is in order to know how far the competitor tech in the competition.

So basically: stealing tech not necessarily means the stealer lack or behind in the technology.

Can you tell me what makes the J-10C excel over the Viper? Because I can tell 1 reason that it's not, on the ground that the SABR radar that the viper have is a fifth gen radar. The same one on an F-35.

AESA is 5th generation radar; as I said: J-10C also fit with the latest AESA radar.

We dont know which radar & EW better between J-10C vs F-16V, but for sure: J-10C excel in BVRAAM, TWR, and TVC. This is the reason why we can say J-10C is superior.

This what I meant by lack of critical thinking. You just believe everything at first glance because it affirms your belief. Use your brain!

LOL. By comparing my citation with your obsolete assumption, you are not only demonstrating the lack of critical thinking, but also logic! You need to bring citation that say otherwise, instead of simply playing your assumption and accuse citation wrong because doesnt fit with your assumption!

I am not just believing that as you said, you need to use your logic: the longer missile range the better advantage in BVR, and the better TWR the better in WVR thats the simple logic. And as I said: PL-15 with 300km should give J-10C edge over Viper in BVR, while 3D TVC + better TWR give J-10C edge over Viper in WVR.

oh no you don't get to weasel your way out of this. You claimed that the J-10C are superior to the viper then why would other country especially the one neighboring china even buying it in large bulk even if it's inferior to the one China have & Japan especially even goes as far to make their own version of the plane called Viper Zero? It as if they disregard your article because it's not substantiated in any way.

I've explained you above.

There are many factors play for decision to buy air fighter, such as: politics, political tie, commonalities, price, after-sales. Many airforce buy F-16 because of US influence (politics) + price + commonality. Which one that you find difficult to understand?

Same like: why dont Indonesia buy J-10C instead of old Eurofighter? we know ... because political tie, we dont want to be tied and controlled by China later.

 

[Reashot Xigwin]

First: most of them are merely "accusation" without solid evidence.
Second: stealing is sometimes still done by developed nations or by high tech company as well, in order to be ahead of competitors. This is an example:
https://www.ft.com/content/ba9f1cce-48c7-11ea-aeb3-955839e06441
https://www.politico.com/story/2014/05/france-intellectual-property-theft-107020
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_espionage
Third: maybe China stole many tech in the past, but just a few recently as they have achieved on par in many areas, including radar and avionics.
Fourth: stealing tech sometimes is in order to know how far the competitor tech in the competition.

So the basically: stealing tech not necessarily means the stealer lack or behind in the technology.



AESA is 5th generation radar; as I said: J-10C also fit with the latest AESA radar.

We dont know which radar & EW better between J-10C vs F-16V, but for sure: J-10C excel in BVRAAM, TWR, and TVC. This is the reason why we can say J-10C is superior.



LOL. By comparing my citation with your obsolete assumption, you are not only demonstrating the lack of critical thinking, but also logic! You need to bring citation that say otherwise, not just simply playing your assumption.

I am not just believing that as you said, you need to use your logic: the longer missile range the better advantage in BVR, and the better TWR the better in WVR thats the simple logic. And as I said: PL-15 with 300km should give J-10C edge over Viper in BVR, while 3D TVC + better TWR give J-10C edge over Viper in WVR.




I've explained you above.

There are many factors play for decision to buy air fighter, such as: politics, political tie, commonalities, price, after-sales. Many airforce buy F-16 because of US influence (politics) + price + commonality. Which one that you find difficult to understand?

Same like: why dont Indonesia buy J-10C instead of old Eurofighter? we know ... because political tie, we dont want to be tied and controlled by China later.

"AESA are fifth gen radar." - Said a moron

Typhoon, Rafale other 4th gen fighter have AESA you Dumbo. Even the JF-17 have it. Heck even the Korean made one from scratch. China is basically the only country that actually think they're special because they make something that other country can already make themselves decades ago. What makes it different is that SABR have double or even in some cases triple the range of most Chinese radar & are used in Fifth gen.

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

Because of the viper's avionics & having almost 90% commonality with the F-35 the viper is only 4th gen in name only but they are more closer to fifth gen. Vipers can linked up & cooperate with ground forces the same way a F-35 can & etc.

Also one reason people are not buying Chinese weapons is because of quality issue which range from unreliable to actually killing the users.

https://m.republika.co.id/berita/en...e-failed-to-fire-in-indonesian-naval-exercise

This is the incident where 4 TNI were killed during exercise firing the Chinese made giant bow.
https://m.detik.com/news/berita/d-3...eriam-buatan-china-yang-tewaskan-prajurit-tni

The gun is brand new, brand new & also the straw that broke the camel's back on never again purchasing Chinese made weapons. This is not political decision btw it's just common sense at this point.

If you want to judge Chinese made weapons by how "good" their civilians products are, wouldn't it make much more sense to judge it using their weapons instead.

 

[antonius123]

"AESA are fifth gen radar." - Said a moron

So what is 5th generation radar if not AESA, according to you and your citation?

Let's see who moron is

Typhoon, Rafale other 4th gen fighter have AESA you Dumbo. Even the JF-17 have it. Heck even the Korean made one from scratch.

So? They are the same generation with F-16 Viper right?

China is basically the only country that actually think they're special because they make something that other country can already make themselves decades ago. What makes it different is that SABR have double or even in some cases triple the range of most Chinese radar & are used in Fifth gen.

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

SABR basically is AESA ... radar range is another issue, and range is not a generation differentiation. So this is another fatally wrong and idiotic assumption

Like I said many times: your radar range will render useless if your AAM range is SHORT! because Viper still need to wait J10C to be within 85km range before Viper can launch AAM, so the Viper's limitation is with the missile not radar. Do you get it dumbo?

Besides, how do you know SABR range is 2 or 3 times latest AESA on J-10C? another obsolete assumption again?

It is you who is a BS claimer claiming only SABR that fall into 5th generation radar

Because of the viper's avionics & having almost 90% commonality with the F-35 the viper is only 4th gen in name only but they are more closer to fifth gen. Vipers can linked up & cooperate with ground forces the same way a F-35 can & etc.

Same like Typhoon, Rafale, J-10C etc, they share some 5th gen features like AESA and even supercruise, but because the rest fall into 4th generation, they are called 4+ generation.

Also one reason people are not buying Chinese weapons is because of quality issue which range from unreliable to actually killing the users.

https://m.republika.co.id/berita/en...e-failed-to-fire-in-indonesian-naval-exercise

This is the incident where 4 TNI were killed during exercise firing the Chinese made giant bow.
https://m.detik.com/news/berita/d-3...eriam-buatan-china-yang-tewaskan-prajurit-tni

The gun is brand new, brand new & also the straw that broke the camel's back on never again purchasing Chinese made weapons. This is not political decision btw it's just common sense at this point.

If you want to judge Chinese made weapons by how "good" their civilians products are, wouldn't it make much more sense to judge it using their weapons instead.

To say weapon is bad in quality just because failure in one trial is idiotic. Failure sometimes happen, it could be because of handling, operating, simply accident, not necessarily quality issue; learn how western missile and rocket failed, you will see so many failure in western missile, rockets, and fighters

https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/03/28/patriot-missiles-are-made-in-america-and-fail-everywhere/
https://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-f156nov06-story.html
https://www.seattletimes.com/busine...ed-f-15rsquos-breakup-in-2007-pentagon-finds/
Everything on F-35 is brand new ... but ...
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/21/magazine/f35-joint-strike-fighter-program.html

Trust me ... failure in US weapon: missile, rockets and fighter much more happen than China's weapon.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_accidents_and_incidents_involving_military_aircraft_(2010–2019)

If you say that past China's weapon clouded with quality issues you are right, but as I said recent China's weapon quality improve a lot and in par with US.

 

[antonius123]

@Reashot Xigwin, This is a good example how politics influence weapon/military equipment purchase:


Trump threat spurred Indonesia to drop Russia, China arms deals
Jakarta, Indonesia / Fri, March 13, 2020 / 01:30 pm
Sukhoi Su-35 Super Flanker, Russia- Air Force JP7665544 Usage: 0 (Courtesy of/Wikimedia Commons/Oleg Belyakov)


The Trump administration pressured Indonesia into dropping deals to buy Russian-made fighter jets and Chinese naval vessels, part of a global effort to prevent its top adversaries from eroding the US’s military superiority.

Indonesia recently decided against moving ahead with a plan to procure 11 Sukhoi Su-35 fighter jets for about $1.1 billion, according to an official familiar with the matter, who asked not to be identified because the details of discussions remain private. As recently as last month, the official said, the US also pressured Indonesia into walking away from talks with China to procure several naval patrol vessels for about $200 million.

https://www.thejakartapost.com/news...ndonesia-to-drop-russia-china-arms-deals.html

 

[gambit]

@gambit I welcome your radar expertise. Can you tell us what a so called "5th generation" radar is, and how it differs from other AESA radars?

The difference lies in the data processing.

Electronic Scanning Array (ESA) have been around for decades, as in the 1960s with the 'passive' or PESA version. Miniaturization -- or the lack thereof -- pretty much grounded the concept. As electronics technology progresses, including solid state which raised the bars on miniaturization, airborne ESA became reality. The 'active' technology is the latest iteration.

These are the most common target resolutions...

- Airspeed
- Altitude
- Heading
- Aspect Angle

The difference between an ordinary radar and an AESA system lies in the granularity of each item. Take aspect angle, for example. Aspect angle, to put it simply, is how the target is 'with respect to' (wrt) the radar, even if the target is 'looking' up or down (pitch) and moving away from the radar. The difference between the so-called generations is 1 deg vs .1 vs .01 and so on. The finer these target resolutions, the better the PREDICTIVE algorithms that eventually feeds the intercept (collision) paths of gunnery and missile solutions.

No one is going to reveal the technical details of what they designed. Sales brochures are quite meaningless. The results from exercises to test manufacturers' claims are secrets. Pilots know but they will say nothing. Movies are worst sources on how basic radars works, let alone something like AESA systems in actual operation.

 

[Reashot Xigwin]

So what is 5th generation radar if not AESA, according to you and your citation?

Let's see who moron is [emoji23]



So? They are the same generation with F-16 Viper right?



SABR basically is AESA ... radar range is another issue, and range is not a generation differentiation. So this is another fatally wrong and idiotic assumption [emoji38]

Like I said many times: your radar range will render useless if your AAM range is SHORT! because Viper still need to wait J10C to be within 85km range before Viper can launch AAM, so the Viper's limitation is with the missile not radar. Do you get it dumbo? [emoji23]

Besides, how do you know SABR range is 2 or 3 times latest AESA on J-10C? another obsolete assumption again?

It is you who is a BS claimer claiming only SABR that fall into 5th generation radar [emoji23]



Same like Typhoon, Rafale, J-10C etc, they share some 5th gen features like AESA and even supercruise, but because the rest fall into 4th generation, they are called 4+ generation.



To say weapon is bad in quality just because failure in one trial is idiotic. Failure sometimes happen, it could be because of handling, operating, simply accident, not necessarily quality issue; learn how western missile and rocket failed, you will see so many failure in western missile, rockets, and fighters

https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/03/28/patriot-missiles-are-made-in-america-and-fail-everywhere/
https://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-f156nov06-story.html
https://www.seattletimes.com/busine...ed-f-15rsquos-breakup-in-2007-pentagon-finds/
Everything on F-35 is brand new ... but ...
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/21/magazine/f35-joint-strike-fighter-program.html

Trust me ... failure in US weapon: missile, rockets and fighter much more happen than China's weapon.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_accidents_and_incidents_involving_military_aircraft_(2010–2019)

If you say that past China's weapon clouded with quality issues you are right, but as I said recent China's weapon quality improve a lot and in par with US.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth-generation_jet_fighter

What makes the APG-83 superior to any Chinese made radar because it can receive billions of data within second, stealth versus adversary radar, wide area surface scan more than >20 objects at over 300km, high definition visual on air & land targets to the point that it can differentiate which type of hardware they're targeting, not to mentioned it is designed to go up against cruise missiles in the 1st place but most importantly it can also target low & slow threat like Drones (the small one you take picture with) of which in the future will be more prevalent.

Can Chinese radar do that? Cause I searched & they don't have anything close to it. The longest I check was around 150-180 & it can only target around 10.

The quality of Chinese made weapons is already a meme.

The main reason why we bought Chinese weapons was because it's cheap & we are fresh straight out from embargo. And it is a decision that we all soon came to regret horribly. In the case of the clurit test failure the real reason why it failed was horrifyingly shocking. The engineers from CAIC in charge of fitting the ship did such a horrible job at doing the job that it failed spectacularly in front of the president. The main reason was caused by the wiring the investigators found out that it is the wiring & it is placed so poorly that the investigator even mentioned that it is more in line with a civilian work than a military one. Remember that this is the engineer sent from CAIC possibly not even actually from CAIC, flown into the country, they did their work & the work was so horrible that Indonesia basically scrap further deal with china in working with the clurit class & went with the Danish Terma instead for the last 2 ship & possibly replacing the Chinese electronic in the other class. Also not to mentioned the Clurit class was discontinued because of china piss poor job at it that even the naval command abandon the missile boat concept.

So in summary the Chinese messed up so badly angered the entire high command which led to the killing of an entire class of ship & the removal of the doctrine from the naval tactical book. It's not everyday you hear this level of buffoonery on an international scale to that I have to say china really is something incredible.

& On the Giant Bow remember it was brand new & it broke under it's own weight when firing proving it self as a testament to Chinese quality. The point is that if China can't even build a simple artillery piece what hopes do they have on building something much more complicated like an AESA radar especially compared to western made one?

This is your logic remember.

Mate Indonesia was already discontinuing their military contract with china over quality concerns that's the point & with Russia it's different it's because of their annexation of Crimea.

So try again mate.

 

[gambit]

Trust me ... failure in US weapon: missile, rockets and fighter much more happen than China's weapon.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_accidents_and_incidents_involving_military_aircraft_(2010–2019)

Why should we trust you? This statement revealed you know nothing about testing and actual operations.

Failure rate during testing can -- and do -- come from test criteria, in other words, we test to failure.

The wiki source you brought on is also meaningless in that it give no valid comparison to other sources that come close to how we do things. For example, two pilots flew 5 hrs a week. Does that mean anything? Very little. But when we dig into the details and found pilot A flew with more maneuvers, acceleration, and different altitudes in those 5 hrs a week than pilot B, guess who is the better pilot overall?

Trust you who are so bad at being an armchair warrior?