Taiwan Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

Mr T said:

Per the above, a different Chinese-language source said Taiwan ordered just under 250 TC-2 SAMs with 30 or so launchers. Again, take with a pinch of salt.

Click to expand...

It's confirmed for quite some time already


Since the Army’s Chaparral missile system is getting obsolete, the military plans to purchase a "New Field Air Defense Weapon System" to replace it. This weapon system procurement project code-named "Falcon Project" includes 246 ground-type Sky Sword II (TC-2) missiles, 6 "bee-eye" radars and many other related subsystems, Part of the originally frozen budget has also been unfrozen after being approved by the Foreign Affairs and National Defense Committee of the Legislative Yuan. The whole case is expected to start production of 41 missiles in 2021, with the entire production completed in 2026.

The air defense of the Army Corps is currently dominated by the vehicle-mounted Avenger missile system and the Chaparral missile system. However, because the Chaparral missile system is getting obsolete, it is getting harder and harder to source spare parts. Maintenance cost has also been increasing year by year. Since the military did not propose a performance improvement plan for the Avenger system, the military plans to use a new domestic air defense weapon system to replace it.

According to the Ministry of National Defense’s open budget statement, the "New Field Air Defense Weapon System" project includes missiles, engagement control system, phased radar sub-systems and other equipment to replace old equipment in order to counter enemy aircraft, unmanned vehicles and cruise missiles. The missile system ensures the protection targets and the safety of the troops, with the total procurement budget reaching 14.32169 million yuan.

The Ministry of National Defense pointed out in the open budget statement that the procurement of the "New Field Air Defense Weapon System" includes: 6 sets of engagement control sub-systems, 6 sets of phased radar sub-systems, 29 sets of missile (firepower unit) sub-systems (including vehicles). and 246 missiles. The military also aims to build up training regimen, overall logistics support, various backup materials and allocate related funds. The whole case is expected to be completed in 2026.

The "New Field Air Defense Weapon System" is a new type of low-altitude short-range air defense system consisting of a mobile air-defense phased radar, ground-type Sky Sword II (TC-2) missile and a domestic 40mm autocannon. It has area air defense capabilities and is a system that combines both missile launcher and anti-air gun. The ground-type Sky Sword II (TC-2) missile is a derivative of the air-launched Sky Sword II (TC-2) missile, with an effective range of 15 kilometers and a maximum range of 30 to 45 kilometers.

supersnoop said:

You yourself had said a rogue Chinese Nationalist in Taiwan could steal the secrets a few pages ago.

Click to expand...

Yes, I did. But the point I was making isn't that it's likely to happen, only that it's a risk to be taken into consideration. It's the same risk that the US faces from people trying to sell stuff to the PRC, including ethnic Han Americans. But the US doesn't ban Han Americans from working in restricted areas or from US citizens talking to PRC citizens, because the risks are outweighed by the potential benefits.

The US takes into account the risk of things falling into the PLA's hands, which is why it rarely sells the most cutting-edge material that it has to Taiwan. Washington wouldn't want a F-16V to be lost to them, but it wouldn't be the end of the world. Javelin? Not sure what the risk is there. Whereas an F-35 would be bad as things stand. 5 years down the road that might be a different matter. Or Washington and Taipei might decide that for the cost of a useful number of F-35s Taiwan could do something else that was more beneficial.

It's all a matter of balance. The US wants Taiwan to be able to protect itself so needs to decide what it can afford to lose and what the risk of it being lost is.

FACT: Greater Chinese nationalism is an issue unique to China-Taiwan relations.

Click to expand...

See above. These days due to the United Front there are potential loyalty issues with ethnic Han of non-PRC/ROC nationalities as well, even if they're probably as trustworthy as anyone else. There's little effective difference between a Taiwanese who is pro-CCP and an American who is pro-CCP. Just because Taiwan's official name is "Republic of China" doesn't make the threat from the American any less.

The move to volunteer force is flailing (yes, flailing like a person drowning), the numbers just aren't there.

Click to expand...

How can that be measured objectively? What figures show a) death, b) treading water and c) swimming?

tupolevtu144 said:

The ground-type Sky Sword II (TC-2) missile is a derivative of the air-launched Sky Sword II (TC-2) missile, with an effective range of 15 kilometers and a maximum range of 30 to 45 kilometers.

Click to expand...

Huh. Effective range of 15km but a maximum range of 30-45km? Does "effective range" mean something like a 80-90% chance of destroying the target and "maximum range" a lower percentage?

And since someone talked about Sky Bow 2 (TK-2) missiles, in fact all of the Sky-Bow 2 (TK-2) missiles are based in and fired from reinforced VLS silo cells at various SAM sites. It is said that since the physical dimensions of TK-2 and TK-1 missiles are interchangeable TK-1 missiles can be loaded in the silos as well. Though there has been test videos of TK-2 missiles firing from mobile launchers similar to the ones used by the Patriot missile (and TK-1 as well), Taiwan's military doctrine back in the 1990s prompted the fixed reinforced VLS design to ensure maximum survival. It is also said since the TK-2 missiles are too heavy it can't be loaded onto Patriot or TK-1 mobile launchers.

If you type check up Sky Bow missile on Wikipedia you're supposed to see the photo of a Patriot-like missile launcher included in the section of TK-2. That's a TK-1 missile launcher (there's even a plaque in front of the truck saying "Sky Bow 1" in Chinese). There are very, very little information and photos on the internet regarding the TK-2 missile. In fact there are so little information and photos of them it's easier to find PLA-related stuff in comparison lol.

Schematic of a typical Sky Bow 2 (TK-2) SAM site (with some Sky Bow 1 TK-1 radars also included):



From this satellite image, you can clearly see the 5 clusters of 2 4x2 VLS silos located on either side of an access road (located at Penghu Island)



You can see the VLS silos located behind the 3 people on the left.



A very rare image depicting the reload process of a TK-2 VLS cell. You can see a glimpse of the open reinforced bunker door for the VLS cells on the right.



Chang-Bei PESA phased array radar for TK-2 missiles. A major difference between TK-2 and TK-1 missiles is that TK-2 missiles no longer require target illumination radars since the missiles are active radar homing (I may be wrong in this one). The Chang-Bei radar has a 120 degree coverage and a 450km detection range.



Supposed coverage of Chang Bei radar at known TK-2 missile sites. According to insiders there are 12 Chang Bei radars in total.

In comparison here's a Sky Bow 1 TK-1 mobile missile launcher which is rather similar to the Patriot.



Here's a Sky Bow 3 TK-3 mobile launcher which utilizes the hot-launch VLS method.



6 Tk-3 mobile missile launchers located at a port during an drill.

In the age of precision guided munitions with CEPs in the single digit meters, fixed SAM sites (whether VLS or radars) are not a good idea.

tupolevtu144 said:

Here's a Sky Bow 3 TK-3 mobile launcher which utilizes the hot-launch VLS method.

Click to expand...

That's interesting what you say about the TK-2 potentially not being suitable for a Patriot or TK-1 road-launcher. Perhaps with the development of the TK-3 it was decided to not be worth making launchers for the older missile.

Haha in fact one of the websites even featured data from our Sino Defense Forum dated back to 2009 lol




I wonder what the stats are in 2020 lol

Some photos of reinforced HF-2 anti-ship missile sites located in Hualien (east coast)

Though camouflaged I think you can spot them with ease.



Interior of the launch complex. You can see that they basically installed ship-based missile canisters inside a reinforced bunker.



Reload process of missile.



Firing from bunker.

Mr T said:

Yes, I did. But the point I was making isn't that it's likely to happen, only that it's a risk to be taken into consideration. It's the same risk that the US faces from people trying to sell stuff to the PRC, including ethnic Han Americans. But the US doesn't ban Han Americans from working in restricted areas or from US citizens talking to PRC citizens, because the risks are outweighed by the potential benefits.

The US takes into account the risk of things falling into the PLA's hands, which is why it rarely sells the most cutting-edge material that it has to Taiwan. Washington wouldn't want a F-16V to be lost to them, but it wouldn't be the end of the world. Javelin? Not sure what the risk is there. Whereas an F-35 would be bad as things stand. 5 years down the road that might be a different matter. Or Washington and Taipei might decide that for the cost of a useful number of F-35s Taiwan could do something else that was more beneficial.

It's all a matter of balance. The US wants Taiwan to be able to protect itself so needs to decide what it can afford to lose and what the risk of it being lost is.



See above. These days due to the United Front there are potential loyalty issues with ethnic Han of non-PRC/ROC nationalities as well, even if they're probably as trustworthy as anyone else. There's little effective difference between a Taiwanese who is pro-CCP and an American who is pro-CCP. Just because Taiwan's official name is "Republic of China" doesn't make the threat from the American any less.



How can that be measured objectively? What figures show a) death, b) treading water and c) swimming?



Huh. Effective range of 15km but a maximum range of 30-45km? Does "effective range" mean something like a 80-90% chance of destroying the target and "maximum range" a lower percentage?

Click to expand...

So basically we agree. I also never said it's some super probable risk, just that it a special case. This is why I said it's irritating to bring up martial law period, or CCP. Obviously the F-35 is more critical to keep safe than F-16V.

As an aside FYI, US doesn't ban Chinese-Americans, but the scrutiny and retaliation level are higher. The statistics are public. However, that is not relevant to this thread.

tupolevtu144 said:

This is a very easy question. It's a mostly a political decision. Politicians in Taiwan knows that restoring a new conscription is literal political suicide since few are willing to serve in the military in Taiwan. As for reforming the training system for only older people the official statement is that there is a lack of manpower in conscripts (take note that only those who served 4-month "military training courses" after the abolishment of conscription are not counted as conscripts) while there is enough manpower for those who served 4-month "training courses". This is because as more and more conscripts age they are no longer fit for conscription. But there is a lot of rumor saying that the real reason why the reforms only affect older people is because DPP doesn't want to affect the young voting base who mostly vote for DPP.

Click to expand...

With regards to the recruitment, I have posted on this before as well. Colourful language aside, the numbers simply are not there. MND are not meeting their targets (not the "revised goals"). Even if you counted these 4-month campers as effective strength, they would not be able to operate Harpoon/HF-2/SHORAD or any advanced systems, they would barely be able to operate a rifle accurately. Here's the rub, although advanced systems can act as a force multiplier, making a single person more productive, multiple of zero is still zero.

Look at your recent post of air power comparison. Only 10 years and it is basically totally out of date. J-20, PL-12, PL-15, PL-10 and all of that stuff are not there. Even crusty J-11A has been upgraded to carry R-77. How will you engage these high-end platforms without your own high end forces?

supersnoop said:

So basically we agree. I also never said it's some super probable risk, just that it a special case.

Click to expand...

I think the point got lost a bit. You didn't seem to believe that the US has taken into account Chinese feelings on arms sales in the past, whereas I was of the opinion that certainly in the past the US has sometimes been cautious due to concerns about how Beijing would react.

So with Obama, yes he did not sell Taiwan new F-16s. But he sold Taiwan upgrades to their existing F-16s, which included the AN/APG-83. For all intense purposes they were going to be the same as a new F-16 of the time.

At the time it was seen as a compromise, because China was pushing the US hard on respecting a previous agreement not to give Taiwan "new" weapon systems. So, it appears the thinking went, it was ok to upgrade the exisiting F-16s because Taiwan already had them.

Obviously matters have changed somewhat because Trump has been selling new F-16s and SLAM-ER. That said I'm not sure a Chinese reaction to the F-35 being sold wouldn't be taken into account, as it could be presented as an escalation in an arms war by Beijing.