Taiwan Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

[Jon K]

Then why have any? You can't manage with just a handful of interceptors - they'd be wiped out too fast for them to make a difference.

A key part of Taiwan's defence strategy is to have a deterrence so that China will think twice. It's a big mistake to just rely on the Americans, as China may attack anyway one day. Avoiding a war is as (if not more) important than ensuring you have a reasonable chance if one does start.

Again, you're acting as if war is inevitable and cannot be avoided. A balanced fleet is necessary.

A few interceptors (say, eight to twelve) are useful for showing the flag, for recognition of unknown aircraft etc. Additionally, even small number of fighters make the attacker attack airfields etc.

Yes, deterrence is the key for a defensive force but it may be asked why would large fighter force contribute for either deterrence or actual conduct of defence? Why would SAM based air defense system be of less deterrence?

As for actual conduct of defense, with range of modern weapons, such as tactical missiles, cruise missiles, ASM's and coastal artillery I'd say it's dubious whether operating fighters from vulnerable bases would be of any advantage.

And about the balanced fleet, what's it for? A Coast Guard style force would be useful for peaceful missions (SAR etc.) as well as escorting ships against asymmetrical threats (sponsered pirates, boardings etc). Say, Arleigh Burke does not have any advantages over a coast guard ship in those missions except it's much more costly. For deterrence, it's clear that Taiwanese Navy alone cannot deter PLAN, or guard the SLOC's against actual military threat (subs etc.). For actual defensive tasks in a war, all possible targets can be reached with land-based assets.

 

[Deleted member 675]

A few interceptors (say, eight to twelve) are useful for showing the flag, for recognition of unknown aircraft etc.

A small number like that would not make any difference. China would see it as a trivial defence and wipe them out, either in the air or on the ground even if they lost planes themselves.

Yes, deterrence is the key for a defensive force but it may be asked why would large fighter force contribute for either deterrence or actual conduct of defence?

Because it's more credible, as China would have to agree to suffer far more losses.

Why would SAM based air defense system be of less deterrence?

Where did I say Taiwan can't have any SAMs? Of course it should have them. But if you put all your eggs in one basket you're asking for trouble.

I'd say it's dubious whether operating fighters from vulnerable bases would be of any advantage.

Have you actually researched the status of Taiwanese air bases yourself? No offence, but don't make assumptions if you're guessing.

Besides, it's quite possible to harden bases "vulnerable" bases.

And about the balanced fleet, what's it for?

For being able to manage with any particular form of attack.

A Coast Guard style force would be useful for peaceful missions (SAR etc.) as well as escorting ships against asymmetrical threats (sponsered pirates, boardings etc).

And it would be useless in time of war.

Say, Arleigh Burke does not have any advantages over a coast guard ship in those missions except it's much more costly.

I didn't mention the Arleigh Burke class once - I only mentioned the KH-5 and KH-6. Why did you bring it up?

For deterrence, it's clear that Taiwanese Navy alone cannot deter PLAN, or guard the SLOC's against actual military threat (subs etc.).

Jon, you have this habit of ignoring what I've been saying. At no time have I suggested the ROCN could discourage the PLAN by itself. I've said over and over that balanced forces are the way to go. Please do not put words in my mouth.

For actual defensive tasks in a war, all possible targets can be reached with land-based assets.

It's foolish to ignore the maritime aspect. If Taiwan has an active navy with a range of assets that can engage the PLAN then it's not easy for China to stage an invasion without total air superiority. If, however, the only thing China has to fear are ground-based defences then it would risk the attack even if it didn't have total control of the skies.

 

[Jon K]

Because it's more credible, as China would have to agree to suffer far more losses.

The question is whether to have SAM's or fighters, after all, or to be more exact, whether to base air defense on SAM's or fighters. ROC had GDP roughly similar to Sweden. From my, albeit very limited viewpoint, it seems that it's trying to operate a far too large military for it's economy with too large mission spread. And I have rough time seeing why a primarily SAM based air defense system would be less credible than one based in quite old fighter planes. SAM's can defeat (or try to defeat) both TBM's and air breathing threats, while interceptors can be used against air breathing threats only.

The same goes for the ROC Navy. It currently operates large number of frigate sized ships (26 it seems), but are the resources used on them wasted on long term as PRC maritime strike capabilties are bound to increase? Kidd's have a credible area air defense capability, so they're useful for as long as they're active, but I don't see point in maintaining Perry's, Knox's and Lafayette's.

By operating just "coast guard" style Navy the capabilities for asymmetric operations would be still there, but the resources used to maintain "balanced fleet" would be available for air defense, building up contingency stores etc.

Jon, you have this habit of ignoring what I've been saying. At no time have I suggested the ROCN could discourage the PLAN by itself. I've said over and over that balanced forces are the way to go. Please do not put words in my mouth.

Sorry, there seems to be misunderstanding. But if ROCN cannot defeat Chinese blockade and in the future, probably it's heavy units will have hard time operating in the straits, what's the point of having a balanced fleet? For offensive uses, subs are much better.

It's foolish to ignore the maritime aspect. If Taiwan has an active navy with a range of assets that can engage the PLAN then it's not easy for China to stage an invasion without total air superiority. If, however, the only thing China has to fear are ground-based defences then it would risk the attack even if it didn't have total control of the skies.

Umm, looking from the map the HF-III can close the Straits already, what else is there to do, really? Subs can also act as defensive element, as well as try to do counter-blockade against PRC.

On air superiority, what's it good for if against SAM's the attacker cannot operate her own aircraft? Eliminating SAM's takes a number of sorties too, and in case of ROC, I'd argue against limited number of ROCAF it would be easier for PLAAF to destroy them in an air superiority fight than eliminate IADS, which is really much more difficult operation.

 

[Finn McCool]

Personally I think that the ROC should put its money on weapons that will allow survive the initial onslaught and provide the capability to hit an invasion fleet afterwards.

By branch:

• ROCAF: It should maintain its F-16 fleet, but not replace it unless it is offered unaltered F-35s. As the F-16s phase out it should move towards a SAM based network for defence, with a small number of dual-use aircraft indigenously produced scattered on Swedish style small airfields, in hardened, camoflauged shelters. The main purpose of these aircraft would be to hit an invasion fleet with Harpoons and other weapons, with some acting as escorts. The ROCAF should also invest in passive sensors and at least one spy satillite to monitor the PRC side.
• ROCN: Again a gradual phase out would be good here, although many of the ROCN's ships can be done away with immediately. The ROCN then should move to acquire several diesel-electric subs and to produce large numbers of Hsuing-Feng armed FACs. They already have that project underway.
• ROCA: The ROCA should focus on creating a hi-lo mix. It would have some highly professional units centered on one heavy unit that would lead a counterattack against a newly established beachead. Augmenting the more professional army would be a National Guard-like corps of citizen soldiers trained in both more conventional infantry tactics and more assymetrical skills like IED use. The ROCA (if this is the ROCAs area of responsibility) should also have a large force of mobile truck-launched SSMs, capable of being disguised as civillian vehicles. Other procurements would be Javellin and Stinger missles.

All this may seem expensive but doing away with much of the ROCA's obsolete weaponry and conscripts could pay for it.

 

[SampanViking]

What percentage of GDP is ROC pumping into defence these days? Whenever I read this thread there seems to be news of yet another multi Billion Dollar arms deal.

If they went ahead with all of them, they would surely be putting a higher proportion of earnings into defence than the DPRK!

 

[Pointblank]

What percentage of GDP is ROC pumping into defence these days? Whenever I read this thread there seems to be news of yet another multi Billion Dollar arms deal.

If they went ahead with all of them, they would surely be putting a higher proportion of earnings into defence than the DPRK!

According to CIA World Factbook, 2.2% in 2006, rising to 2.85% in 2007.

 

[Deleted member 675]

ROC had GDP roughly similar to Sweden. From my, albeit very limited viewpoint, it seems that it's trying to operate a far too large military for it's economy with too large mission spread.

In terms of PPP Taiwan's GDP is considerably larger.

In any case, Sweden chooses to spend only a small proportion of its wealth on defence (something like 1.5% of GDP). On the other hand Taiwan is currently spending about 2.5% of GDP - it would increase to 3% this year assuming nothing is cut. That's quite sustainable.

And I have rough time seeing why a primarily SAM based air defense system would be less credible than one based in quite old fighter planes.

Taiwan's F-16s and Mirage 2000-5s are far from "old", and they have some very modern armaments.

SAM's can defeat (or try to defeat) both TBM's and air breathing threats, while interceptors can be used against air breathing threats only.

SAMs are static defences that are vulnerable to air-strikes. If they were as wonderful as you say, countries without "offensive" doctrines wouldn't bother with airforces until they'd developed a nice SAM network.

I don't see point in maintaining Perry's, Knox's and Lafayette's.

ASW and ASuW - the Keelungs can't do that by themselves.

But if ROCN cannot defeat Chinese blockade and in the future, probably it's heavy units will have hard time operating in the straits, what's the point of having a balanced fleet?

A blockade would have to extend all around the island - it's easier said than done. Additionally, again, we go back to the issue of dettera

For offensive uses, subs are much better.

*Sigh*

Taiwan has been trying to order submarines for the last 20 years or so. China's opposition has made this very difficult. If it were as simple as popping over to the local 7/11 Taiwan would have already done that.

looking from the map the HF-III can close the Straits already, what else is there to do, really?

The HF-III isn't in widespread service yet. How could Taiwan have developed a strategy based on a weapon that was still under development?!

Subs can also act as defensive element, as well as try to do counter-blockade against PRC.

And Taiwan has only two of them that are combat ready! Future orders will take time, assuming the US plan works out. So in the meantime it needs other vessels.

Do you even know anything about Taiwan's situation?

On air superiority, what's it good for if against SAM's the attacker cannot operate her own aircraft?

So, again, I ask the question - why do countries bother with airforces of any significant size when they don't have huge SAM networks?

If you're still not convinced about why countries should have an airforce over massive SAM networks, please raise a general question on a new thread. This is not a thread for "the theory of everything".

What percentage of GDP is ROC pumping into defence these days? Whenever I read this thread there seems to be news of yet another multi Billion Dollar arms deal.

If they went ahead with all of them, they would surely be putting a higher proportion of earnings into defence than the DPRK!

Sampan, I think you're getting forgetful in your old age. We discussed this some months ago, where I told you that Taiwan is expanding its defence budget at a sustainable pace.

As Pointblank has demonstrated, Taiwan's spending as a proportion of GDP is quite balanced. North Korea spends around 23% of GDP on its military - almost ten times more than Taiwan does proportionately. Equally, how many multi-billion orders have received congressional notice and been discussed on this forum? Just one - the P-3C Orion deal.

Maybe if you kept yourself better informed you wouldn't get yourself into a pickle over Taiwanese defence spending.

 

[adeptitus]

If we look at historical military expenditure data, Taiwan/ROC follows similar pattern to Asian countries in the "western sphere" like S. Korea, Malaysia, etc. They went from spending 6%-7% GDP on military in 1980s to 2%-3% by 2006. I think only Singapore maintained theirs at 5% GDP.

I have to say, this is probably the first time I've read anyone suggesting that ROCAF should just ditch their fighters. @_@? Taiwan is not New Zealand, and the best weapon vs. aircraft is still aircraft. If you rely on SAMs, you'll just be on the receiving end of punishment. Except for a few situations (Stingers in Afghan) SAMs haven't done that well against aircraft in recent wars. The Serbs got a lucky hit on a F-117, but overall it did not change the outcome of the war.

However, I'm not saying that SAM batteries are useless. It does put up a barrier and threat to attacking aircraft, and we can prolly see a future trend where PLA & ROCA's SAM battery's range will overlap each other's territory (!). But overall it rarely changes the outcome of the war. In comparison, winning air superiority, almost guarantees a victory.

 

[SampanViking]

Sampan, I think you're getting forgetful in your old age

Quite right, as I get older forgetfullness and confusion play an ever larger role in my life and no mistake.

But I am sure I am reading about, not only the Orions, but Arleighs PAC-2 or 3 Missiles, new F16's or JSF's and hosts of other things.

By my reckoning ROC has about $10 BIllion per annum for its military budget, so how much is absorbed in normal running costs, and how much is available for purchasing new systems etc on an annual basis?

oh yes and young Fu, you said

Sampan, I think you're getting forgetful in your old age

Quite right, as I get older forgetfullness and confusion play an ever larger role in my life and no mistake.

 

[Deleted member 675]

But I am sure I am reading about, not only the Orions, but Arleighs PAC-2 or 3 Missiles, new F16's or JSF's and hosts of other things.

Right, this is where I think you're getting confused. Taiwan often requests a lot of stuff because it knows it can only get some of it approved. So the theory is that the more they ask for, the more they can choose from. In some respects that's why there's been a hold-up in approving some of the items approved by President Bush in 2001. He authorised more than Taiwan expected, so the government has been doing its best to digest it gradually.

Arleigh Burkes and F-35s have not been approved and would not be available for some time anyway - they're future purchases. Best to try to get approval now rather than wait until you really need them and then find the White House isn't so sure.

By my reckoning ROC has about $10 BIllion per annum for its military budget, so how much is absorbed in normal running costs, and how much is available for purchasing new systems etc on an annual basis?

It varies from year to year. I think this year it's approaching 40%?

Taiwan doesn't pay all in one go - it allocates installments every year. For example, there was about US$450 million allocated for the F-16 purchase in the 2007 budget. When added to the money in the 2008 budget there will be a total of over US$1 billion put aside.

The reason it can do this is because the US has not been approving new sales in as large numbers recently as it has previously. That gives Taiwan time to "catch up" as it were. Also the main reason for the budget expansion has been new arms purchases, rather than an increase of wages, etc.