TerraN_EmpirE
Tyrant King
on a related front
Taiwan Military News, Reports, Data, etc.
- Thread starter Gollevainen
- Start date
Skywatcher
Captain
Speaking of the Cloud Peak ramjet missile, it's a waste of time and money (the US and USSR dropped that technology for very valid operational and technical concerns by the 1960s).
The US and PRC would pay more attention if AIDC converts the F-5s into UCAVs (a la the J-6 conversions) instead of throwing away money on a platform that has pretty much all the drawbacks of cruise and ballistic missiles without the advantages of either weapons type, or builds new UCAVs along the lines of the Predator C.
Will detail more if I get the time.
The US and PRC would pay more attention if AIDC converts the F-5s into UCAVs (a la the J-6 conversions) instead of throwing away money on a platform that has pretty much all the drawbacks of cruise and ballistic missiles without the advantages of either weapons type, or builds new UCAVs along the lines of the Predator C.
Will detail more if I get the time.
Skywatcher
Captain
If you want to rattle Washington to sell F-16s or whatever, the Cloud Peak is not a very credible alternative.
Cloud Peak is stated to be high altitude, fly at Mach 3.0 and have a range of 1,200km (possible 2,000km upgrade).
The Cloud Peak will be very heavy, at least in the 5 to 10 ton range if you want to fly at Mach 3 and go 1,200km (along with expectations of a range increase to 2,000km in the future). The Brahmos weighs about three tons, has a 300kg warhead and it only goes to 300-400km (the P-700 Granit weighs at 7 tons, Mach 2.5 and has a range of about 600km, but it does carry a 750kg warhead). That would pretty much confine the Cloud Peak to bases, and that raises questions about survivability before you even get to fire it off (unless you want to launch a first strike on the Mainland, which is a diplomatic nightmare).
A 10 ton ramjet cruise missile could cost at least $10-20 million, depending on how you factor development and maintenance. And unlike a UCAV, it's strictly a one shot weapon, and less survivable.
If you wanted, say, three Cloud Peak squadrons (one or two might not be a credible deterrent), you might have to pony up at least $3 billion for procurement and development. In the current ROC budget environment, that's putting a lot of eggs into one basket.
The problem with a long range ground attack ramjet missile is that no matter how reliable you make, it will continue to have various limitations that comes with ramjet engines. The fundamental disadvantage of a ramjet is that unlike a subsonic turbofan cruise missile, you can't hide by flying low, and unlike a ballistic missile, you take longer and you stay inside the atmosphere, allowing various AD assets multiple opportunities to engage you. And ramjet cruise missiles are typically not very maneuverable.
Now ramjets don't too well at subsonic speeds, so trying to fly low like a BGM-109 isn't going to work (if you fly it at 45-50m high, you'll cut the range by a third to a half possibly), and the report states that the Cloud Peak will be high altitude .
So you're flying the Cloud Peak at 10 km, maybe even 15 km altitude, so there's no way you can hide it (even if you were able to decrease RCS significantly, it would escalate costs uncontrollably). However, unlike a ballistic missile, the PRC will have a relatively longer response time, about 30 minutes to go across 1,200km.
That 30 minutes not only allows for PLAAF SAMs to shoot, and shoot again at the Cloud Peak, it means that J-8s, J-10s and J-11s can be vectored in, get the Cloud Peak within the no escape zone of their PL-11/PL-12s (heck, even the PL-10 SRAAM might be enough) and kill it. Unlike manned fighters or even UCAVs, the ramjet Cloud Peak can't really maneuver out of danger (its ECM suite is likely to be minimal). The Cloud Peak might have been a decent idea against the PLAAF of ten years ago which didn't have much in the way of AEWC or BVRAAMs, but nowadays you're better off with a UCAV or buying more HF-IIE subsonic cruise missiles.
Incidentally, the ROCAF currently has three HF-IIE squadrons, total program cost is about $1 billion, IIRC.
Cloud Peak is stated to be high altitude, fly at Mach 3.0 and have a range of 1,200km (possible 2,000km upgrade).
The Cloud Peak will be very heavy, at least in the 5 to 10 ton range if you want to fly at Mach 3 and go 1,200km (along with expectations of a range increase to 2,000km in the future). The Brahmos weighs about three tons, has a 300kg warhead and it only goes to 300-400km (the P-700 Granit weighs at 7 tons, Mach 2.5 and has a range of about 600km, but it does carry a 750kg warhead). That would pretty much confine the Cloud Peak to bases, and that raises questions about survivability before you even get to fire it off (unless you want to launch a first strike on the Mainland, which is a diplomatic nightmare).
A 10 ton ramjet cruise missile could cost at least $10-20 million, depending on how you factor development and maintenance. And unlike a UCAV, it's strictly a one shot weapon, and less survivable.
If you wanted, say, three Cloud Peak squadrons (one or two might not be a credible deterrent), you might have to pony up at least $3 billion for procurement and development. In the current ROC budget environment, that's putting a lot of eggs into one basket.
The problem with a long range ground attack ramjet missile is that no matter how reliable you make, it will continue to have various limitations that comes with ramjet engines. The fundamental disadvantage of a ramjet is that unlike a subsonic turbofan cruise missile, you can't hide by flying low, and unlike a ballistic missile, you take longer and you stay inside the atmosphere, allowing various AD assets multiple opportunities to engage you. And ramjet cruise missiles are typically not very maneuverable.
Now ramjets don't too well at subsonic speeds, so trying to fly low like a BGM-109 isn't going to work (if you fly it at 45-50m high, you'll cut the range by a third to a half possibly), and the report states that the Cloud Peak will be high altitude .
So you're flying the Cloud Peak at 10 km, maybe even 15 km altitude, so there's no way you can hide it (even if you were able to decrease RCS significantly, it would escalate costs uncontrollably). However, unlike a ballistic missile, the PRC will have a relatively longer response time, about 30 minutes to go across 1,200km.
That 30 minutes not only allows for PLAAF SAMs to shoot, and shoot again at the Cloud Peak, it means that J-8s, J-10s and J-11s can be vectored in, get the Cloud Peak within the no escape zone of their PL-11/PL-12s (heck, even the PL-10 SRAAM might be enough) and kill it. Unlike manned fighters or even UCAVs, the ramjet Cloud Peak can't really maneuver out of danger (its ECM suite is likely to be minimal). The Cloud Peak might have been a decent idea against the PLAAF of ten years ago which didn't have much in the way of AEWC or BVRAAMs, but nowadays you're better off with a UCAV or buying more HF-IIE subsonic cruise missiles.
Incidentally, the ROCAF currently has three HF-IIE squadrons, total program cost is about $1 billion, IIRC.
Mr T
Senior Member
Re: US think tank head urges Taiwan to cut military power against China
That would effectively mean that as soon as Chinese troops landed in any sort of strength the war would be over. Taiwan needs a decently-sized ground force to deal with a beachhead and/or multiple smaller incursions, including paratrooper attacks. Sure, it couldn't defeat the entire PLA, but the entire PLA wouldn't be engaged against Taiwan, nor could it land in one go.
And how exactly would that benefit Taiwan? You need to leave the option of taking the fight to the enemy, even if that would be difficult.
I was tempted to suggest this guy was a proxy for the Chinese military, but I think it's more a case of someone being totally naive of China's attitudes towards Taiwan. It doesn't see Taiwan as some sort of threat that needs to be countered, such that a pledge of "defence only" would reassure it. It sees Taiwan as a rogue province that might need to be dragged back "home", even it kicks and screams all the way. Promising not to kick or scream would make China more tempted to force the issue in the future.
That would effectively mean that as soon as Chinese troops landed in any sort of strength the war would be over. Taiwan needs a decently-sized ground force to deal with a beachhead and/or multiple smaller incursions, including paratrooper attacks. Sure, it couldn't defeat the entire PLA, but the entire PLA wouldn't be engaged against Taiwan, nor could it land in one go.
And how exactly would that benefit Taiwan? You need to leave the option of taking the fight to the enemy, even if that would be difficult.
I was tempted to suggest this guy was a proxy for the Chinese military, but I think it's more a case of someone being totally naive of China's attitudes towards Taiwan. It doesn't see Taiwan as some sort of threat that needs to be countered, such that a pledge of "defence only" would reassure it. It sees Taiwan as a rogue province that might need to be dragged back "home", even it kicks and screams all the way. Promising not to kick or scream would make China more tempted to force the issue in the future.
Re: US think tank head urges Taiwan to cut military power against China
I would think that is the reality already, and has been for nearly a decade. If you still think the mainland still adopts the old method of swarming Taiwan with troops then you would be mistaken. Every half-modern military in the world would lead their assault with missile strikes first. After the initial strikes, whatever's left of the ROC military would either be ashes or in caves, the road to reclamation is clear.
I would think that is the reality already, and has been for nearly a decade. If you still think the mainland still adopts the old method of swarming Taiwan with troops then you would be mistaken. Every half-modern military in the world would lead their assault with missile strikes first. After the initial strikes, whatever's left of the ROC military would either be ashes or in caves, the road to reclamation is clear.
plawolf
Lieutenant General
Re: US think tank head urges Taiwan to cut military power against China
Cutting the ground forces significantly but transforming it from a largely conscript based force to a totally volunteer force would actually enhance Taiwan's overall ground combat capabilities.
Currently the ROC might have a big standing army on paper, but the bulk of that is made up of poorly trained and largely uninterested conscripts who tend to do the least they can get away with in terms of training, and are liable to desert en mass if war actually breaks out. Since these guys are likely to be hit hard in the initial strikes and would likely see large casualties in a veto short amount of time.
In my book, having 10 better equipped and trained men who can and want to fight is infinitely preferable to 20 press ganged spotty overweight teenagers who you may need to watch closer than the enemy in case they decide to make a run for it and shoots you, their CO, in the back first to make sure you don't stop or report them.
Cutting the head count would also mean that Taiwan can afford to spend more in each man to give them better kit, more training, and better pay and benefits to make sure you get some decent people rather than have gifted warriors go into the
private sector because they cannot raise a family on crappy army pay.
That is basically what the Chinese did when they cut millions from the PLA, and today, the PLA is a far better force because of those changes.
The rest of Bates' suggestions are pure nonsense though. If the US does not want to be involved in a firefight with China, no amount of playing the sympathy card will get them to change their minds. Although saying that, Taiwan really could do with ruling out terror attacks like trying to bomb the three gorges damn can kill countless civilians with flooding, or attacking the Shang Hai and Hong Kong financial districts.
Cutting the ground forces significantly but transforming it from a largely conscript based force to a totally volunteer force would actually enhance Taiwan's overall ground combat capabilities.
Currently the ROC might have a big standing army on paper, but the bulk of that is made up of poorly trained and largely uninterested conscripts who tend to do the least they can get away with in terms of training, and are liable to desert en mass if war actually breaks out. Since these guys are likely to be hit hard in the initial strikes and would likely see large casualties in a veto short amount of time.
In my book, having 10 better equipped and trained men who can and want to fight is infinitely preferable to 20 press ganged spotty overweight teenagers who you may need to watch closer than the enemy in case they decide to make a run for it and shoots you, their CO, in the back first to make sure you don't stop or report them.
Cutting the head count would also mean that Taiwan can afford to spend more in each man to give them better kit, more training, and better pay and benefits to make sure you get some decent people rather than have gifted warriors go into the
private sector because they cannot raise a family on crappy army pay.
That is basically what the Chinese did when they cut millions from the PLA, and today, the PLA is a far better force because of those changes.
The rest of Bates' suggestions are pure nonsense though. If the US does not want to be involved in a firefight with China, no amount of playing the sympathy card will get them to change their minds. Although saying that, Taiwan really could do with ruling out terror attacks like trying to bomb the three gorges damn can kill countless civilians with flooding, or attacking the Shang Hai and Hong Kong financial districts.
Mr T
Senior Member
Re: US think tank head urges Taiwan to cut military power against China
That seems to be going down the "don't bother having a military at all because it's going to be smashed up" road. That's not a defence policy, it's defeatism.
I would also say that it's a lot harder to destroy men and mobile equipment than it is airforce bases or SAM sites, especially if you want to get things over and done with quickly before an outside force intervenes. I'm not suggesting Taiwan try to build a vast army, but ground forces of 65,000 are so small they're not really worth having at all.
That seems to be going down the "don't bother having a military at all because it's going to be smashed up" road. That's not a defence policy, it's defeatism.
I would also say that it's a lot harder to destroy men and mobile equipment than it is airforce bases or SAM sites, especially if you want to get things over and done with quickly before an outside force intervenes. I'm not suggesting Taiwan try to build a vast army, but ground forces of 65,000 are so small they're not really worth having at all.
Re: US think tank head urges Taiwan to cut military power against China
If the mainland commits to attacking Taiwan, satellites would be providing twenty four hours surveillance and guidance for missiles, both cruise and ballistic. Taiwan's military can be as mobile as they want, but they can't outrun missiles. Unless they hide themselves underground or in caves, they're going to be spotted, tracked and destroyed. That basically means they will have to spend their time in caves in order to survive, which leaves no-one to guard the coastline. Unless of course the caves are right on the coast, in which case they can both stay in caves and defend the coastline at the same time, but their cave opening will be exposed to missiles.
Either way, Taiwanese armed forces will not be able to stop a Chinese landing alone. They can hope for US assistance, but I seriously, like seriously doubt that US will be willing or even be ABLE to assist on a battlefield so close to Chinese territory. And the notion of the US being willing to go nuclear for Taiwan is so far fetched, it can be regarded as sci-fi.
If the mainland commits to attacking Taiwan, satellites would be providing twenty four hours surveillance and guidance for missiles, both cruise and ballistic. Taiwan's military can be as mobile as they want, but they can't outrun missiles. Unless they hide themselves underground or in caves, they're going to be spotted, tracked and destroyed. That basically means they will have to spend their time in caves in order to survive, which leaves no-one to guard the coastline. Unless of course the caves are right on the coast, in which case they can both stay in caves and defend the coastline at the same time, but their cave opening will be exposed to missiles.
Either way, Taiwanese armed forces will not be able to stop a Chinese landing alone. They can hope for US assistance, but I seriously, like seriously doubt that US will be willing or even be ABLE to assist on a battlefield so close to Chinese territory. And the notion of the US being willing to go nuclear for Taiwan is so far fetched, it can be regarded as sci-fi.
MwRYum
Major
The way things go at this time, the PLA have already sets their goals beyond Taiwan - let's face it, besides the economic realities that Taiwan is irreversibly reliant on China, when even in DPP there're voices call for revision in their own China policies, the odds of instigating Taiwan independence AND actually move into due process is about as low as ever - when passion ram face-on against reality, it's like Titanic vs iceberg and iceberg win hands down.
Still, maintaining defense has its perks, it's like when playing deck of cards you'd never relinquish your chips, instead you play them to the fullest, keeping yourself in the game is way better then letting yourself marginalized in the regional power games. Though if and when things are getting harder to import, Taiwan should pump more efforts into local initiatives.
Still, maintaining defense has its perks, it's like when playing deck of cards you'd never relinquish your chips, instead you play them to the fullest, keeping yourself in the game is way better then letting yourself marginalized in the regional power games. Though if and when things are getting harder to import, Taiwan should pump more efforts into local initiatives.