Hey hey it come with made in America label. It label alone cost 140 million dollars. And gain owner holy aura to repel any demonic attacks ( well besides Iran obviously).
Taiwan Military News, Reports, Data, etc.
- Thread starter Gollevainen
- Start date
Mr T
Senior Member
They're the SeaGuardian configuration, which means that they're configured for surveillance. They're not required as a weapons platform but to give Taiwan more eyes on what China's doing. This is important even if China has not started hostilities, as it may give Taiwan (and the US) more warning if an invasion or other military operation is being prepared.
There's also no obvious reason why the US would make it physically impossible to mount weapons in the future, given it's almost certain they would need to do the conversion to add weapons.
Finally, the sale hasn't been concluded, so who are these people "in the know" that can already say how they'll be delivered?
Last edited:
Mr T
Senior Member
Just to add to my earlier post - sorry for not being able to edit it directly - but the price is in line with what the US charged Belgium two years ago.
Indeed it appears to be virtually the same package - six MQ-9Bs for $600 million.
Plus I've re-read the DSCA notification for Taiwan's MQ-9Bs. It specfically says they're "Weapons-Ready". That does not indicate any attempt to disable systems so weapons could not be mounted in the future.
Does nobody read the link posted? They are specifically being sold with WEAPONS HARDPOINTS, but no armaments yet. They definitely can be armed.
It was speculated a few pages ago why ROC would not put this same money into improved HF-II development and production. Not only would it provide high-tech work, but also keep the production line running and decrease overhead costs.
That being said, 400 Harpoons pose a clear and obvious defensive capabilities regardless of the price paid.
4 drones, pitted against what might be the military most invested in anti-drone capabilities, is a highly questionable investment.
See above. Let's make the assumption that this money will be spent on the military no matter what. Imagine the government announcing 600 million investment into Military drone development that would create 100's of jobs in Taiwan. Let's say they paid a reasonable price for SLAM-ERs and was able to increase this to something like $1b to $1.5b investment. You would create jobs, hopefully create high-tech intellectual property, look like you are trying to stop the brain drain to mainland and US, look like you are investing in the defense of the island, and on top of it, not give PRC an excuse to complain and threaten ROC. This is a win-win-win-win-win. To borrow a phrase, "are you tired of all the winning?"
Just seems like DPP government's priorities is to give face to Trump/US government and at the same time give the middle finger to PRC at the expense of taxpayers.
One thing to note with the Belgian Reaper buy, is that the agreement was signed at the same time as their F-35 purchase. When the F-35 initial price was announced at 6.5b USD, there was a lot of grumbling and complaints of corruption, suddenly the price magically dropped to 4.7b USD.
Other buys to compare to
1.5b for 16 Reaper to France (2013)
1b for 26 Predator-B to UK (2016)
It was speculated a few pages ago why ROC would not put this same money into improved HF-II development and production. Not only would it provide high-tech work, but also keep the production line running and decrease overhead costs.
That being said, 400 Harpoons pose a clear and obvious defensive capabilities regardless of the price paid.
4 drones, pitted against what might be the military most invested in anti-drone capabilities, is a highly questionable investment.
See above. Let's make the assumption that this money will be spent on the military no matter what. Imagine the government announcing 600 million investment into Military drone development that would create 100's of jobs in Taiwan. Let's say they paid a reasonable price for SLAM-ERs and was able to increase this to something like $1b to $1.5b investment. You would create jobs, hopefully create high-tech intellectual property, look like you are trying to stop the brain drain to mainland and US, look like you are investing in the defense of the island, and on top of it, not give PRC an excuse to complain and threaten ROC. This is a win-win-win-win-win. To borrow a phrase, "are you tired of all the winning?"
Just seems like DPP government's priorities is to give face to Trump/US government and at the same time give the middle finger to PRC at the expense of taxpayers.
One thing to note with the Belgian Reaper buy, is that the agreement was signed at the same time as their F-35 purchase. When the F-35 initial price was announced at 6.5b USD, there was a lot of grumbling and complaints of corruption, suddenly the price magically dropped to 4.7b USD.
Other buys to compare to
1.5b for 16 Reaper to France (2013)
1b for 26 Predator-B to UK (2016)
Mr T
Senior Member
The very fact they're configured for surveillance rather than as a weapons platform suggests the intent is to use them to keep an eye on the PLA before war breaks out so that Taiwan knows if an invasion is actually coming or if Chinese air "attacks" are just bluster.
Taiwan is developing its own drones, but it looks like the earlier versions weren't good enough so have gone back to the drawing board. As I said regarding the Harpoons versus building more HF-IIs and HF-IIIs, Taiwan knows it can get the Harpoons/SeaGuardians within a fixed period, but it cannot know for sure when the domestic options will be available in the same number.
Also, whilst I appreciate that you may not have made this argument, I find it somewhat amusing because for years there were naysayers on this forum saying the Taiwanese domestic defence industry was a joke and just produced a lot of white elephants without mentioning jobs created. It's refreshing to see a different attitude.
DSCA notifications are not the final price, they're the maximum price with all options thrown in. If Belgium wanted to lower the price they would have probably made some concessions on what they were getting, albeit they may have also made some concessions to the US about poking up their defence spending (there were some modest increases last year and this year).
1. That doesn't take account of inflation; and
2. They're not SeaGuardian.
To be fair hellfire is not the right missile to use against ships. I think they probably went for hellfire since it is comparatively less expensive than actual anti-ship missiles like HsiungFeng.
AssassinsMace
Lieutenant General
Well I'm giving some counter propaganda back since they wanted to display their Hellfires to China. Just like bragging about Reapers is a message to China. What are Reapers going to do? How will they beat China with Reapers since they're bragging about them? They planning on destroying Type 99As crossing the Strait? As far as I know Hellfires can't destroy tanks that are underwater. A Hellfire is probably the most advanced weapon those Reapers could carry. What's the range of a Hellfire? They'll be shot down before they would have a chance. And then weapons are not included in the sale? Relying on a Reaper for surveillance when they have that billion dollar radar they bought from the US that China shows they can jam. What exactly are they trying to brag to China about? I don't see it.
I'm welling to bet if they so much as dare to cross the midline with a MQ-9 it's going to end up landing at a military airfield in China ala Iran's RQ-170.