Taiwan Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

zyklon

zyklon

Junior Member
Registered Member
siegecrossbow said:
I am baffled by the discussions about guerilla warfare when 1) it is infeasible on an island the size of Taiwan and 2) DPP decision makers hinges their entire defense plan on aid from U.S./Japan, which implies that they are not planning for guerilla warfare.
Click to expand...

There are at least a few American political elites – including those who hold or held national prominence and sway over Trump – inspiring naive, if not self-defeating expectations of Taiwanese Guerilla Independence Fighters® (TGIF™) repelling the PLA.


In fact, according to one such notable and current Ohio gubernatorial hopeful Vivek Ganapathy Ramaswamy, giving guns to untrained civilians is what will "stop Xi Jinping from invading Taiwan!" :D

Lots of guns! :cool:


4Tran said:
It makes a lot more sense once you figure out who's discussing guerilla warfare.
Click to expand...
4Tran said:
The Americans won't do so because it would mean that they're unable to act fast enough to save Taiwan. So who does that leave?
Click to expand...

You might be giving some American political elites more credit than they typically deserve.

More than a few of them have a habit of saying things regarding the island of Taiwan that will inevitably age poorly.

4Tran said:
Just the military enthusiasts who want to "prove" that China can't win in Taiwan.
Click to expand...

Erik Prince, the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
founder of
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
— a man who has reportedly fathered almost as many children as Elon Musk — apparently believes or disingenuously claims that separatists on Taiwan can raise a combat effective force of 720,000 guerillas!


This is despite explicitly characterizing a not insignificant portion of local forces as soy boys:
Their military is largely very weak, very [uncomfortable sounds of self-doubt] I'd say a lot of soy boys, not all, but uhh enough.
Click to expand...

If you think about it, it's absolutely insane that someone as operationally experienced as Erik could say this with a straight face, especially given the assumptions he set forth:
Where there's armed people that know what they’re doing, that have maybe four to six weeks of partisan training, uhh makes conquering the island completely exceedingly difficult.
Click to expand...

Not sure how 720,000 civilians will not only learn to fight, but also develop both the will and skills to "live off the land" in 28-42 days, but who are we to doubt whatever training program Mr. Prince might be pitching to Mr. Lai and company at the moment!
 
P

PLAwatcher12

Junior Member
Registered Member
4Tran said:
The entire urban combat part of the exercise is pure propaganda. Taiwan is fully aware that by the time there's fighting in the streets of Taipei, China has already won. Moreover, if they were serious about this kind of combat, then they'd be putting a lot more effort into training into urban fighting and there'd be far more exercises.

I will say though, that if it wasn't propaganda, all of the accidents and other inelegant shows of ROCA capability would actually be good for them. This kind of thing is bound to happen in wartime, so it's much better to use exercises to reveal as many weaknesses as possible so that they'd be able to come up with solutions for the real thing.


It makes a lot more sense once you figure out who's discussing guerilla warfare. The DPP wouldn't do so because the government will have fallen by the time they have to break out the guerillas so it means they've failed to protect Taiwan. The Americans won't do so because it would mean that they're unable to act fast enough to save Taiwan. So who does that leave? Just the military enthusiasts who want to "prove" that China can't win in Taiwan. If you pay attention, these are the same people who will say that losing Taiwan won't matter because Taiwan and the US have plans in place to blow up all of TSMC's fabs.
Click to expand...
I wouldn’t say the urban combat part is all propaganda, some definitely is like yes if China is fighting in Taipei, China won but same with if China lances on the beaches China won, but you it’s still important to do it because when fighting occurs you need to be prepared for every possibility even if the war is already lost
 
P

PLAwatcher12

Junior Member
Registered Member
Since Han Kuang 41 has officially ended, here are some things I have noticed about this years training.
1. Taiwan has experienced with putting guns on their HIMARS, an idea that should not cross their mind.
2. Bad use of camouflage for military vehicles including Radars, AD systems, APC and HIMARS.
3. Taiwan seems to think China might attack the ports and airports something China probably wouldn’t do until it’s necessary.
4. related to #3 but Taiwan also seems to think they would attack it with helicopters and parachuters.
5. Taiwan seems to refer to “micro” drones as DJI size drones. Taiwan has purchased 1,458 of them for surveillance and counterattacks for $43.68 million, that means each drone had everything with it account to about 30k.
6. Taiwan still relies on WW2/Cold War weapons to “defend” the beach head including the 105mm M101 and the M39 cannon what is a fixed and manned system making it easy to destroy in modern combat.
7. Taiwan seems to have poor communication with civilians and military escorts as shown by the 7 accidents this year in the 10 days that injured 5 soldiers.
8. Taiwans military leadership and security analysts informing them seem to be stuck in a Cold War mindset and don’t understand how modern warfare works.
9. Taiwan does not seem to care much about their revisits, what will be imporant in any war.
10. Taiwans revisits seem in pictures to look bored and not interested in what they’re being taught what indicates poor morale and discipline.
11. Taiwan still fully believes they will be able to be resupplied during war and that the US will help even though that’s not a guarantee, a bad long term strategy.
12. Even though Taiwan can build their own weapons they seem to not be interested in doing so and instead rely on the US, what may indicate little trust in their indigenous products.
13. Taiwan seems to be interested in using HMMWV for their marines with T-75S auto cannons and an MK19 40mm grenade launcher, for counterattacks and patrols to make sure no enemy are left.
14. Taiwan seems to be interested in using the CM22 for combat roles as they did a few combat trainings with it but it’s based on the Cold War M106 and it requires two people to fire it and stable it and when it fires it needs and open top and the rear doors down, it seems risky in a modern war.
15. Taiwan is stuck in the Cold War model of blowing up a bridge would delay Chinese forces what they won’t for more than a few minutes.
16. Taiwan seems to think Cold War barriers will be useful to delay Chinese forces landing or moving what is also very outdated.
17. Taiwan simulated putting 18 anti ship missiles on a patrol ship to be used during war, it’s a risky move because if hit Taiwan loses 18 anti ship missiles what are ether the Hsiung Feng II or III and given their likely lightly armored it won’t be difficult to hit and along with the fact they have no protection like on board SAM
18. It doesn’t seem like every solider in the same unit get access to the same gear, but it is a possibility not all choose to wear the gloves.

It was a lot but I do think these were all the problems I saw maybe some more but idk.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_5219.jpeg
    IMG_5219.jpeg
    541.3 KB · Views: 28
  • IMG_5169.jpeg
    IMG_5169.jpeg
    123.2 KB · Views: 26
  • IMG_5098.png
    IMG_5098.png
    942.8 KB · Views: 24
  • IMG_5220.jpeg
    IMG_5220.jpeg
    825.8 KB · Views: 23
  • IMG_5221.jpeg
    IMG_5221.jpeg
    245.9 KB · Views: 26
Helius

Helius

Senior Member
Registered Member
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Machine translation -

[Exclusive] Another accident occurs in the Navy: the propeller blades of the Yushan amphibious dock landing ship break off unexpectedly.​

Zhu Ming October 29, 2025, 18:38:00

202510291902398089.jpg
The Yushan warship recently conducted a training voyage, and upon returning to shore, it was discovered that a piece of its right propeller blade was missing. The cause of the breakage is currently being investigated. (Composite image/provided by reader, Wikipedia)

The Navy's new Yushan amphibious transport dock recently conducted a training voyage. Upon returning to port, it was discovered that a piece of the right propeller blade was missing. Divers were unable to locate the broken propeller blade within the Zuoying naval port, leading to the conclusion that it may have broken off and fallen into the open sea during the voyage. Was the breakage caused by human error or other factors? The Yushan warship has currently entered the CSBC shipyard for inspection to determine the cause of the breakage.

Before setting sail, naval warships always send divers to the bottom of the ship for a safety inspection. Only after everything is found to be normal will the warship set sail for various training exercises and missions. It is understood that during the safety inspection of the Yushan warship before it set sail, the divers did not find any abnormalities when they went to the bottom of the ship. However, after the ship returned to shore, when the divers went down to inspect it, they clearly saw that one of the five blades of the right propeller was missing a piece; they immediately reported this to their superiors.

202510291900007460.jpg
After the Yushan warship returned to port and anchored, divers inspected it and discovered that one of the blades of the right propeller was missing. (Provided by a reader)

After divers searched the waters near where the Yushan warship was anchored but found no broken metal objects, it was initially determined that the propeller blade may have broken off and fallen into the open sea during its voyage. Since only one piece of the propeller blade was missing from the tail, it is possible that the blade broke off when the propeller speed was not high. As for the cause of the propeller blade breakage, it is still inconclusive. Currently, the Yushan warship will be inspected and tested after it is drained from the dock to determine the cause.

In fact, the recent failure of the Navy's prototype submarine, the Haikun, to complete its testing according to schedule has already sparked discussion. In addition, in late February this year, the Navy's new rescue ship, the Dawu, experienced an accident while conducting tugboat training off the coast of Zuoying. During the recovery process after the towline was released, the ship's port side became entangled and deformed due to improper operation by the crew. The ship was inspected in dry dock and found to be deformed on the port side shaft and worn reduction gears. The captain was transferred and disciplined. In July, the Audit Department also pointed out that the static testing items such as the supervision testing and acceptance inspection of the integrated platform management system of the new rescue ship had not been completed and corrected before dynamic testing was carried out. The relevant testing procedures did not comply with the construction specifications, and there were still 74 deficiencies in the integrated platform management system that had not been corrected.

The recent rare incident of a propeller blade breaking off on the Yushan warship has inevitably raised questions about the state of the navy. Regarding the incident, the Navy Command stated that after returning to port from a mission, the Yushan warship discovered damage to one of the five middle blades of its starboard rotor. There were no signs of external impact on the hull or other parts of the ship. The ship was immediately taken to the CSBC shipyard for replacement of the starboard rotor blade, and the Navy is cooperating with CSBC to analyze the cause of the damage. (Editor: Yin Zhenwei)
 
C

Clango

New Member
Registered Member
I've seen recent posts (In Chinese) about how the F-CK-1C for an AESA upgrade, anyone know anything about that? They claim that it's an indigenous radar. I'm really curious as to how the pitiful F125s are supposed to supply enough electricity to power a reasonably potent radar, supposedly it's based on this thing with what I've counted to be 564 TRMsphoto.jpeg
 
Last edited:
A

Atomicfrog

Major
Registered Member
Helius said:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Machine translation -

[Exclusive] Another accident occurs in the Navy: the propeller blades of the Yushan amphibious dock landing ship break off unexpectedly.​

Zhu Ming October 29, 2025, 18:38:00

View attachment 163663
The Yushan warship recently conducted a training voyage, and upon returning to shore, it was discovered that a piece of its right propeller blade was missing. The cause of the breakage is currently being investigated. (Composite image/provided by reader, Wikipedia)

The Navy's new Yushan amphibious transport dock recently conducted a training voyage. Upon returning to port, it was discovered that a piece of the right propeller blade was missing. Divers were unable to locate the broken propeller blade within the Zuoying naval port, leading to the conclusion that it may have broken off and fallen into the open sea during the voyage. Was the breakage caused by human error or other factors? The Yushan warship has currently entered the CSBC shipyard for inspection to determine the cause of the breakage.

Before setting sail, naval warships always send divers to the bottom of the ship for a safety inspection. Only after everything is found to be normal will the warship set sail for various training exercises and missions. It is understood that during the safety inspection of the Yushan warship before it set sail, the divers did not find any abnormalities when they went to the bottom of the ship. However, after the ship returned to shore, when the divers went down to inspect it, they clearly saw that one of the five blades of the right propeller was missing a piece; they immediately reported this to their superiors.

View attachment 163664
After the Yushan warship returned to port and anchored, divers inspected it and discovered that one of the blades of the right propeller was missing. (Provided by a reader)

After divers searched the waters near where the Yushan warship was anchored but found no broken metal objects, it was initially determined that the propeller blade may have broken off and fallen into the open sea during its voyage. Since only one piece of the propeller blade was missing from the tail, it is possible that the blade broke off when the propeller speed was not high. As for the cause of the propeller blade breakage, it is still inconclusive. Currently, the Yushan warship will be inspected and tested after it is drained from the dock to determine the cause.

In fact, the recent failure of the Navy's prototype submarine, the Haikun, to complete its testing according to schedule has already sparked discussion. In addition, in late February this year, the Navy's new rescue ship, the Dawu, experienced an accident while conducting tugboat training off the coast of Zuoying. During the recovery process after the towline was released, the ship's port side became entangled and deformed due to improper operation by the crew. The ship was inspected in dry dock and found to be deformed on the port side shaft and worn reduction gears. The captain was transferred and disciplined. In July, the Audit Department also pointed out that the static testing items such as the supervision testing and acceptance inspection of the integrated platform management system of the new rescue ship had not been completed and corrected before dynamic testing was carried out. The relevant testing procedures did not comply with the construction specifications, and there were still 74 deficiencies in the integrated platform management system that had not been corrected.

The recent rare incident of a propeller blade breaking off on the Yushan warship has inevitably raised questions about the state of the navy. Regarding the incident, the Navy Command stated that after returning to port from a mission, the Yushan warship discovered damage to one of the five middle blades of its starboard rotor. There were no signs of external impact on the hull or other parts of the ship. The ship was immediately taken to the CSBC shipyard for replacement of the starboard rotor blade, and the Navy is cooperating with CSBC to analyze the cause of the damage. (Editor: Yin Zhenwei)
Click to expand...
I would look at all the shaft bearings after that unbalanced propeller was just undetected until returning of mission...
 
A

Atomicfrog

Major
Registered Member
Clango said:
I've seen recent posts (In Chinese) about how the F-CK-1C for an AESA upgrade, anyone know anything about that? They claim that it's an indigenous radar. I'm really curious as to how the pitiful F125s are supposed to supply enough electricity to power a reasonably potent radar, supposedly it's based on this thing with what I've counted to be 564 TRMsView attachment 163676
Click to expand...
These bird are more than 25 years old and build in small number (about 130). I cannot see upgrades like a solution. Maybe its for their new build T-5 Brave Eagle variant, they have about 40 build... still not a lot.

Dont know if the gain of value for money is enough to do that. They are not great airframes to begin with.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top