Taiwan Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

Can both sides of the argument just stand down from this ceremonial posturing?

Everyone knows that Taiwan is currently self governing and has what could be constituted as "de facto" independence -- but everyone also knows that if Taiwan wants to make moves towards "de jure" independence that is the red line that China has set drawn clearly and repeatedly emphasized will lead to a conflict.

I don't think many people here care about the domestic politics of Taiwan very much, but the specific policies of whatever government is in power and the moves that are made (or not made) which creep towards towards "de jure" independence are some of the specific policies of interest.
That is why when one party enters government and enacts policies which flirts with and/or tries to creep towards "de jure" independence, you see more pushback, more hostility and generally more cross strait antagonism and tension.


When those moves are made by a government who should be well and fully aware of the risks of getting close to -- or god forbid crossing -- that red line, one cannot change the fact that the status quo which everyone had a preexisting understanding of is being altered, and the informed knowledge of the consequences falls on the side whose policies are being altered in context of longstanding and explicit declarations from the other side.



Speaking more colloquially, I don't think anyone here wishes for conflict, but there is confusion, alarm and increasingly spite at the way in which flirtations and creeping moves towards de jure independence is being enacted seemingly without full understanding of the potential consequences, and if one wants to carry out those flirtations and creeping movements then there is an expectation that the same side has the resolve to stomach said potential consequences.

If one really wants to talk about things in a realpolitik manner then that is at least a minimal, base expectation IMO.


edit: I would also add that I can't help but feel like any discussion around "independence" is almost always hamstrung without a clear preceding word of whether they mean "de facto" or "de jure".

hijiki said:

Taiwan is an independent country. It's just not recognized as such at the UN. But in many ways, it is handled as an independent country. The no recognition at the UN is reflected in China's efforts to slide Taiwan's sovereign standing along a gradient bar of practical reality closer to the end point of no independent soveignty whatsoever. The other end point of the gradient bar is entirely independent Taiwan sovereignty. There are many things that show the reality that Taiwan's position on that independent gradient bar is actually closer to the independent bar.

Here are many surveys carried out by Japan-Taiwan exchange association. The surveys ask about favorite country and such. If Taiwan was part of China, then the questions such as "what is your favorite country?", "which country should Taiwan emphasize its relation with the most?", or "which country has the greatest influence on Taiwan?". Among the answer choices is China. That means it is being handled as separate.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

In JETRO export/import data sheets, separate statistics are recorded for China 中国 and Taiwan 台湾. No "Chinese Taipei" or anything like that.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The JASDF has information ADIZ information for Taiwan just like how Japan, ROK, and the Philippines have their own. And data for number of times JASDF scrambled aircraft in response to the aircraft of other countries and Taiwan and China are recorded separately.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

So those plus the reality that Taiwan has their own elections, armed forces, different national flag, etc.

Click to expand...

You need to read up on the difference between de jure and defacto sovereignty. None of the stuff you mentioned means anything.

Can we get back to Taiwan Military please? They tested some missile and laid down new sub recently and no one have news?

Mr T said:

You said "I haven’t shed any blood in a long time." That implies that you shed blood some time ago. So do either of the following apply:

a) you shot or killed someone in the line or duty;
b) you were shot in the line of duty (and obviously survived).

It's a fairly simple question.

Click to expand...

It was supposed to be a joke to your crazy question. You can't think of anything to say about my main points and so focus on my joke? Focus on my main points. Accept the consequences of your OWN decisions. Afraid or unwilling to make sacrifices? Then live a happy and prosperous life as a Chinese. Want to be an independent Taiwanese? Then be prepared to make sacrifices. Simple as that. You can't go both ways. Don't use the Chinese threat as an excuse. It's simply an excuse for hide your selfishness.

LCR34 said:

Can we get back to Taiwan Military please? They tested some missile and laid down new sub recently and no one have news?

Click to expand...

Save for the planned purchase of military communications from the US, no I don't think there is any news. The first submarine won't be launched for several years, and as you say it was only laid down very recently.

Skywatcher said:

Going back to the military side of things, this piece by Eric Chen is a real hoot.

Claim #1) PLA forces are somehow going to be more vulnerable to Taiwan drones after they land (apparently the PLA already has such preexisting fire support superiority that PLA loitering munitions/drones are just redundant, so Taipei doesn't have to worry about them. His idea, not mine).

Bonus: Apparently the support infrastructure for maintaing, operating and massing UAS/loitering munitions is immune to PLA attacks of any king

Claim #2) The ROCAF can use F-5 UAS as decoy to go over to the Mainland and smoke out HQ-9s and S-400/S-300s and pose as strike aircraft, since the PLAAF/PLANAF air patrols have all gone on extended leave (Shall I inform Mr. Chan about the J-6 UAS conversions, or would one of my fellow SDFers like to do the honors?)

Claim #3) Think differently. That's obviously not going to work if think differently means "have bizarre ideas about PLAAF/PLANAF air to air capability and drone warfare and operations in general).

Arsenal of Ideas: Because of course, if you can implement common sense public health measures, then you can magically wish hard enough to somehow overcome a 10:1 deficit in defense spending and 28:1 GDP deficit.

Clearly the USAF isn't getting its money's worth from Mr. Chan (unless he's budgeted under the Entertainment category)

Click to expand...

Reading some of his other articles, I do think that his articles are more geared towards entertainment rather than serious military analysis. I'd hope in his primary job he does much more in depth analysis than this.

They seem to be peppered with what he believes to be amusing anecdotes and zingers, and very little substantial analysis, the whole article is only like ~1500 words including his storytelling. Plus multiple articles of his have some longwinded screed on Xi Jinping, which is really irrelevant because the PLA has been upgrading its capability even way before Xi.

The problem with Taiwan military analysis (as I see it), is quite simple.
Anyone with any interest in the topic knows the major problems, they are repeated over and over again in any given article...
1. Politicians' penchant for big ticket items (for showing off)
2. Woefully inadequate reserve training system
3. Always talking about "asymmetric" warfare

Problem is that in the past 20 years, there has been nothing done to address any of these points seriously. Really, by now, all these points have been hammered over and over again. If we use the analogy of beating a dead horse, by now we have 20 year fermented horse paste (beaten far beyond even regular "ground horse").

I have yet to see any recent analysis which raises any new points, even worse, I have never read anything in my years of reading about cross-strait military balance, that really goes into depth how to address the PLA's new, more modern capabilities, and certainly not even going into any specific platform details.

For example, since the new submarine project is the big news right now. This was something proposed back when CSB was president. Back the, the most capable ASW asset in PLA was probably Ka-27 Helix, only 052 had VDS, and no ships had TAS. Now that they have finally started on it, PLAN has many ships with VDS and TAS. Y-8Q MPA is in active service and collecting data almost daily. Z-20 ASW version is in trials. KJ-600 carrier-based fixed wing ASW is on the drawing board.

J-20 might as well be a fairy tale, because with all the talk about F-16V "cementing defense ties between Taiwan and the United States", there is no mention of how it would actually enhance defense capabilities for Taiwan, especially against something like J-20. I suppose it's better than writing an article like "F-16V will keep pace with bulk of PLA fighters", which is basically what it is doing.

Even all the articles about asymmetric capabilities are basically trash. As you pointed out, Eric Chan basically dismisses all of PRC's drone experience with his opening anecdote with the "fire-eater" woman, "drones are asymmetrical... you don't worry about your enemy's drones, make them worry about yours"... like what does that even mean really? First of all, Taiwan doesn't really have a drone fleet to worry about. Second, although not direct, besides the US, only China has major international experience with counter insurgency drone operations. Chinese drones are being used to fight Boko Haram, ISIS, Libyan factions, Yemeni Houthis, etc. If the sensors are well tuned to find Toyota Hiluxes, will Abrams really be an issue? Furthermore, none of this even addresses PLAN's huge investments in anti-aircraft capabilities over the years in all aspects. Even if Taiwan launched every single F-5 in current inventory as an UAV, does it even exhaust a single 055 DDG's Anti-air weaponry?

TL;DR summary:
This is not to illustrate "hopelessness", but rather these Taiwan military "analysts" never writing about anything new, notable, or oftentimes, relevant. Maybe it's not their fault... when there is nothing new to write about, you have no choice but to regurgitate.

supersnoop said:

with all the talk about F-16V "cementing defense ties between Taiwan and the United States", there is no mention of how it would actually enhance defense capabilities for Taiwan

Click to expand...

I thought it was commonly accepted (and generally reported) that new F-16s were crucial for the ROCAF because it hasn't built or bought new jets for many years, and that if sales were continuously deferred or refused they could be left with a gap of available fighters due to ageing planes that had dubious combat capabilities. At least that was the case during the Obama years, maybe more recently that important detail has been left out.

But, yes, there is a fair bit of regurgitation in some articles on Taiwan, as many publications feel the need to run something even if they have nothing new to add.

vesicles said:

I’m simply helping you understand and better accept the consequences of your own decisions. If you are afraid of dying, then live a peaceful and prosperous life and be happy to be Chinese. If you are willing to sacrifice your life to win freedom, then declare independence and face whatever happens next like a man.

Click to expand...

Well here's your problem right here. @vesicles he's not Chinese. He hasn't got a dog in this "fight". He just sowing discord.

Taiwan's new proposed LHA, 22,000 tons, 30 knots. Apparently the idea is for this thing to mount a counterattack in the event of PLA takeover of Taiwan's outlying islands.

It's a shame they didn't just come out and say it would lead a counterattack on the mainland itself like 校長 wanted.

Of the various "World Strategic Defense area" threads, this is one which I think has the most genuine military discussion potential but also one which is most politically tumultous and easily to derail.

This thread is being locked for a few days while I review some of the posts and members involved in the back and forth over the last few days.