Bluffer’s Guide: Fortress Taiwan

kliu0 said:

Not all ROCN vessels are bought, a proportion was manufactured in Taiwan. ROCN does have manufacturing capabilities, they are now manufacturing the Kuang Hua VI (missile boat) and built the Cheng Kung class frigates (based upon Oliver Hazard Perry Class). While China has a huge manufacturing capability, it is dependent on outside resources in order to actually manufacture. There would also be economic sanctions (as mentioned in the 2009 Report to Congress - Military Power of the People's Republic of China) and other actions taken that could severly hamper Chinese manufacturing.

Click to expand...

Actually, I cant agree with the latter part of what you have said here, chinese naval vessals are NOT dependent on outside resources in order to manufacture, I cant really find many navalsystems that China are currently using on thier naval vessals which they cant produce by themself, they are all either self developed or license produced, including the power plant.
And about sanctions, today we have come to a point that any sanctions by xxx vs china will also mean an equally damaging sanction by china vs xxx, more so for each day that going by, also the fact is that china is proberbly one of the only 3 nations on the planet that can build most of its military equipment all by it self, the other 2 been Russia and USA(and EU if you can consider the entire union as a nation).

Anyway, modern ships cant be build fast enough to replace a intensive modern war losses.

PanAsian said:

Re-reading my earlier post, I was probably wrong to say that the ROCN AA assets 'outmatch' what the PLAN has.

Rather, I think ROCN force has a tactical advantage over the PLAN. My thinking was:

PLAN:
051C x 2 x 48 S300 x 90km
052C x 2 x 48 HQ-9 x 200km
052B x 2 x 48 SA-N-12/HQ-16 x 38km
054A x 6 x 32 SA-N-12/HQ-16 x 38km

ROCN:
Kidd x 4 x 66 SM-2 Block IIIA x 165km
Oliver Hazard Perry x 8 x 40 SM-1 x 75km
Knox modified x 8 x 10 SM-1 x 75km

So the ROCN has more missiles with (mostly) more range spread out among more (but not too many) platforms. Therefore the ROCN assets can probably be used in more survivable, better layered and redundant AA formations.

Click to expand...

Having more "missile" hardly tells the whole story about true AA capability.Type 45 destroyer carries less missiles with lesser range than the Kidd class, but the Type 45's AA capability is much superior.

deleted

kliu0 said:

Submarines, licensed production of weapons systems are highly dependant upon outside. Not to mention fuel and other resources. Economic sanctions with specific targets toward resources that contribute to war supplies.

I do agree that modern ships cant be built fast enough, any modern equipment is time consuming to produce. Not to mention the time it takes to put together all the different parts. Military production sites will most likelybe damaged/destroyed during the first and second strikes.

More and more countries are changing from outside-procurement to self-reliance.

Click to expand...

Submarines? hmm... which systems are you refering to?
When it come to licensed production by China, mostly this means that it will sooner or later be fully produced in the country, take the SU27 project , the russians wnted only up to 70% of the plane to be allowed to be produced in china, this resulted in J11B which is about completely chinese made. The PLA has traditionally disliked reliance on others.

When it comes to military production site the PRC would have a huge advantage not just in capabilities and numbers but also most of its location is outside of ROC strike range.

True that more and more countries are changing from outside-procurement to self-reliance, but even the most agressive countries in the field of self reliance like IRAN and SKorea still rely heavily on outside sources, most of the key sub systems within those new (domestic) equipment are still foriegn made, and I dont see that changing. Same can not be said about US, China and Russian though.