Taiwan Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

[Jon K]

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.

Well, if Taiwan spends around 4 billion USD per year for equipment purchases, it's only about 300 million USD more than Sweden spends for equipment purchases. 10 billion USD is less than military budget of, say, the Netherlands.

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

Against PLAAF, they're getting old very soon. And running costs of fighters are very high.

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 know how many countries without offensive air doctrine there are left, excluding ROC. Anyway, during last ten years AD technology has taken giant leaps while aircraft technology has mainly taken leaps in cost. For a country with small land area, very limited military budget and identifiable, quantitavely large threat SAM's are much better option than fighters nowadays.

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

ASuW against what? Is it realistic to expect ROCN to be able to operate in the Straits? ASW campaign running convoys sounds far too ambitious. Above all, all the money spent on large surface combatants is away from forces capable of defence against amphibious landings and air defense.

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

But the question, whether or not future ROCN against future PLAN have any deterrence value at all? Sure, having escort for convoys will make PLAN task more difficult, but not at all impossible. If PRC leadership did commit herself against ROC, it would be, IMHO, a total effort. The proportional deterrence would be no good.

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.

Well, if the money wasn't used less effectively on surface fleet and interceptors, the local industry could have already reverse-engineered those Dutch subs...

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?!

Umm, and even before HF-III it has had ASM's for decades. And we're discussing future here.

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.

But every day running those less effective vessels with crews nibbles money from procurement budget. One simply cannot run 26 frigate fleet, 400 fighter air force and divisions of army with less than Dutch budget. Even if the personnel costs are lower than in the Western Europe and some of the equipment is built domestically, so large forces compared to budget sound to relatively uninformed person, like me, that either training or wartime stocks or both are seriously lacking. Though, positively for ROC, it seems that the ROC Army has been seriously streamlined recently.

 

[Jon K]

But overall it rarely changes the outcome of the war. In comparison, winning air superiority, almost guarantees a victory.

That's partially because during last 35 years the campaigns against IADS have been fought against such military powers as Egypt, Syria, Iraq and Serbia, two last examples with truly overpowering superiority. The SAM technology has advanced much more than aircraft technology during last 35 years.

And there's also the financial aspect. Running costs of a single interceptor are fairly similar to running an contracted SAM battery. Fighters are very costly, they're also tied to air bases while SAM's are more mobile. In a small country like ROC, they're much more useful.

 

[Deleted member 675]

Against PLAAF, they're getting old very soon.

I disagree - the F-16s and Mirages are still quite capable.

ASuW against what?

A Chinese invasion fleet?

If PRC leadership did commit herself against ROC, it would be, IMHO, a total effort. The proportional deterrence would be no good.

You're missing the point. Taiwan's defence policy is to disuade China from attacking on a "pretext" or otherwise choosing to take action. If Taiwan can limit the circumstances for an attack to ones that it can control (e.g. UDI, official change of the constitution to "Republic of Taiwan", etc) then it can greatly reduce the chance for war.

Well, if the money wasn't used less effectively on surface fleet and interceptors, the local industry could have already reverse-engineered those Dutch subs...

That's an assumption. The local shipbuilding concern has been trying for years to convince the government it could make submarines. The problem is that it doesn't have the skills and know-how to make something sophisticated enough for Taiwan's needs. It has been suggested it could make something along the lines of the U-210 or TR-1700, but they are not adequate.

What Taiwan needs is outside help, but because of Chinese pressure that has not been forthcoming. Equally it needs key parts that it can't make itself. A US build is the only way to go.

Umm, and even before HF-III it has had ASM's for decades.

With poorer performance and range.

One simply cannot run 26 frigate fleet, 400 fighter air force and divisions of army with less than Dutch budget.

Sorry, how do you know that? How much money would Taiwan save by scrapping its airforce and navy, and how much capability would it lose at the same time?

Your view is a matter of opinion. Given the Netherlands PPP comparison to Taiwan the latter can get a lot more out of its budget than the former can.

 

[Totoro]

Of course current rocaf fleet is still modern and capable. Trouble is, it is increasingly becoming less modern/capable when compared to plaaf. Since 1992 till today, rocaf has gone through a huge modernization process - getting some 330 new aircraft, capable of BVR combat. That, while impressive, still trails behind plaaf's figures in that same time period, from 1992 till 2007. During that time Plaaf has gotten at least 480 new BVR capable combat planes.

Sure, that in itself doesnt have to mean much today, as we may be comparing apples with oranges. But it shows a pattern. If that time hasnt come already, soon enough we will be comparing apples with apples. Lets say 66 new f16 purchase goes through and gets fast tracked - with all of them delivered by 2012. (LM has stated they could theoretically produce them that fast, if required) So, in the next 5 years rocaf will get 66 more BVR capable fighters and Plaaf will even in the worst case scenario get 150. (that assumes pathetically low production of j11b and j10, with only dozens of new j8 and/or jh7) Anyway, pattern continues.

In the long run, no matter how hard rocaf tries, it will keep lagging behind in money and in numbers of quality made aircraft. Amount of money to go around is finite and i just dont see how can rocaf compete. Even if it goes for quality over quantity and gets approved for a f35 purchase, that would still mean a lion's share of budget, meaning less money for rest of the airfleet modernization.

 

[crobato]

Looking at postings from dylan and Bryan in the CDF, apparently the ROC forces cheated in their last Hankuang exercise.

"Claims (from CCTV 4) made included..

ROCN submarine team made a phone call to those role-playing PLAN submarine command before the exercise and found out the locations of the PLAN submarine force, allowing Taiwan's submarines (all 4 of them) to sink the PLAN submarine force in short order.

Kidd-class destroyers were allowed to travel at equivalent of 60kts to return to port for replinishment.

75 of 100 downed ROCAF jets rejoined combat the next day.

PLA was played by students from Taiwan Defence University.

PRC experts claim this demonsrates lax attitudes in ROC military."

For the whole story.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[Skywatcher]

Probably someone trying to cut corners. Bureaucrats can be very strange sometimes, as if the budget is coming out of their own pockets.

Though Bryan posted a follow up Chinese language article to that (I couldn't read it, though)

 

[crobato]

Probably someone trying to cut corners. Bureaucrats can be very strange sometimes, as if the budget is coming out of their own pockets.

Though Bryan posted a follow up Chinese language article to that (I couldn't read it, though)

That is the link provided up there.

 

[Jon K]

Probably someone trying to cut corners. Bureaucrats can be very strange sometimes, as if the budget is coming out of their own pockets.

Though Bryan posted a follow up Chinese language article to that (I couldn't read it, though)

Well, as PRC and ROC are in propaganda war, one might take this news with a pinch of salt.

What I can read from public sources, the Hankuang exercise is a training exercise, not a wargame with two opposing sides. It is usual in many armed forces that in training exercises, where the goal is to provide maximum stress in limited timeframe, quite impossible things happen in order to provide maximum training opportunities. For example, it is well possible that in a brigade training exercise the enemy, while still trying to punch through infantry battalions, is somehow magically attacking field artillery in order to get field artillery infantry training into condition. If the exercise was held realistically, it might well e that most of the troops did not get any training opportunities at all.

Then there's another thing with field exercises; if they're realistic, the possible enemy gets a hint of actual planned wartime deployments, which is not a good thing.

In fact, if one reads the ROC MinDef press announcements that Hankuong is held in two separate phases, computer simulations and field exercises. What I would imagine, on basis of other countries training regimes, is that actual threat scenarios are wargamed, and in the field exercises serve two functions; research (how much time does it take to march an infantry battalion from point A to B) and deployment exercise. (Mech Brigade Z gets familiar with it's assigned wartime surroundings.)

 

[Jon K]

A Chinese invasion fleet?

But in the Straits? Is the maintenance of frigates and destroyers effective for that role at all?

That's an assumption. The local shipbuilding concern has been trying for years to convince the government it could make submarines. The problem is that it doesn't have the skills and know-how to make something sophisticated enough for Taiwan's needs. It has been suggested it could make something along the lines of the U-210 or TR-1700, but they are not adequate.

TR-1700 updated with modern sensors and command systems (which I'm sure ROC industry could provide) do not sound that bad. Besides, ROCN has had Zvaardwis subs for decades, which probably were top notch when purchased. If Sweden and the Dutch (until recently) managed to build top notch subs, I doubt it would be an insurmountable challenge for ROC. Additionally, as those subs would be locally built, the acquisition costs would be smaller.

With poorer performance and range.

Sure, but with an invasion fleet there's a thing that the invasion fleet has to approach the place it's invading. Meanwhile, the same SSM's were being fired from aerial or surface platforms with equally poor performance and range.

Sorry, how do you know that? How much money would Taiwan save by scrapping its airforce and navy, and how much capability would it lose at the same time?

Your view is a matter of opinion. Given the Netherlands PPP comparison to Taiwan the latter can get a lot more out of its budget than the former can.

Sure, but having more PP does not give ROC military budget ability to buy more hardware from overseas or more oil for airplane and fleet training. It only applies to domestic purchases (eg. ROC made hardware and personnel costs).

Usually in small countries the Air Force is the true hog in terms of operating costs, I would not be surprised that in ROC case the operating costs of ROCAF would be around 50% of the total ROC military operating costs. If you have a link to ROC armed forces budget in English, I can illustrate my point better.

 

[Deleted member 675]

modern sensors and command systems (which I'm sure ROC industry could provide)

That's the whole point - Taiwan has no capacity to make those items. It's why it needs US help.

Besides, ROCN has had Zvaardwis subs for decades, which probably were top notch when purchased.

It only has 80% of the design specs - the missing 20% is what it cannot make up by itself.

If Sweden and the Dutch (until recently) managed to build top notch subs, I doubt it would be an insurmountable challenge for ROC.

They were reliant on outside help building up their industries - they didn't make it happen by themselves. Without external help Taiwan can't do it.

Additionally, as those subs would be locally built, the acquisition costs would be smaller.

It's the other way around. The US estimated that it would push up the cost by 30-40%. Taiwanese industry might benefit, but the budget wouldn't be big enough to deal with it even if you got rid of the airforce.

I would not be surprised that in ROC case the operating costs of ROCAF would be around 50% of the total ROC military operating costs.

If you don't know what the amount spent is then you are guessing. I don't have access to a breakdown of the budget.