Taiwan Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

ZeEa5KPul

Colonel
Registered Member
This is from the Foreign Affairs website. The authors talk about the Sino-America strategic competition overall, but the focus is really on short- or near- term (within 10 years), during which the risk of war is greatest according to the authors. And they're really talking about a conflict over Taiwan. I think the authors have correctly sense the danger given what have been going on in the last few years, particularly over last year.

What's interesting to this thread is the military strategy they advocate in this article: Taiwan needs to retool its military to fight asymmetrically. It's also noteworthy that they suggest that if necessary, the United States should cut funding for costly power-projection platforms, such as aircraft carriers, to fund the rapid deployment of loitering cruise missiles and smart mines near Taiwan. The latter is a far cry from the AirSea Battle concept that was quite popular less than a decade ago.

The military strategy of either Taiwan or the US for the potential Taiwan contingency seems to be still evolving. Taiwan and Pentagon do not appear to be aligned exactly right now. We'll see if they converge and that should be eventually reflected in the arms sales/purchases and training/exercises.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The Risk of War Is Greatest in the Next Decade
By
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

December 17, 2020

In foreign policy circles, it has become conventional wisdom that the United States and China are running a “superpower marathon” that may last a century. But the sharpest phase of that competition will be a decade long sprint. The Sino-American contest for supremacy won’t be settled anytime soon. Yet history and China’s recent trajectory suggest that the moment of maximum danger is just a few years away.

[snip]
...
Basically the authors making a case why China's long term prospect is pessimistic because, you know, democracy, demographics, and debts, etc. Therefore don't worry about the long-term. It's the next decade that is worrysome.
...
[snip]

Taiwan and Tech

Washington’s first priority must be shoring up
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
. If China absorbed Taiwan, it would gain access to the island’s world-class technology, acquire an “unsinkable aircraft carrier” to project military power into the western Pacific, and gain the ability to blockade Japan and the Philippines. China also would fracture U.S. alliances in East Asia and eliminate the world’s only ethnically Chinese democracy. Taiwan is the fulcrum of power in East Asia: controlled by Taipei, the island is a fortification against Chinese aggression; controlled by Beijing, Taiwan could become a base for continued Chinese territorial expansion.

China has spent decades trying to buy reunification by forging economic links with Taiwan. But Taiwan’s people have become more
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
than ever to
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
their de facto independence. Consequently, China is brandishing its military option. Over the past three months, its air and naval patrols have presented a show of
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
in the Taiwan Strait more provocative than any in the last twenty-five years. An invasion or coercive campaign may not be imminent, but its likelihood is rising.

Taiwan is a natural
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, but Taiwanese and U.S. forces currently are ill equipped to defend it, because they rely on limited quantities of advanced aircraft and ships tethered to large bases—forces China can neutralize with a surprise air and missile attack. Some American
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
and
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
are calling on Washington to formally guarantee Taiwan’s security, but such a pledge would amount to cheap talk if not backed by a stronger defense.

Washington should instead deploy hordes of missile launchers and armed drones near, and possibly on, Taiwan. These forces would function as high-tech minefields, capable of inflicting severe attrition on a Chinese invasion or blockade force. China needs to control the seas and skies around Taiwan to achieve its objective, while the United States just needs to deny China that control. If necessary, the United States should cut funding for costly power-projection platforms, such as aircraft carriers, to fund the rapid deployment of loitering cruise missiles and smart mines near Taiwan.

The United States also needs to help Taiwan retool its military to fight asymmetrically. Taiwan plans to acquire enormous arsenals of missile launchers and drones; prepare its army to deploy tens of thousands of troops to any beach at a moment’s notice; and reconstitute a million-strong reserve force trained for guerrilla warfare. The Pentagon can hasten this transition by subsidizing Taiwanese investments in asymmetric capabilities, donating ammunition, and expanding joint training on air and coastal defense and antisubmarine and mine warfare.

Finally, the United States should enlist other countries in Taiwan’s defense. Japan might be willing to block China’s northern approaches to Taiwan in a war; India might allow the U.S. Navy to use the Andaman and Nicobar Islands to choke off Beijing’s energy imports; European allies could impose severe economic and financial sanctions on China in case of an attack on Taiwan. The United States should try to convince partners to commit publicly to taking these types of actions. Even if such measures are not decisive militarily, they could deter China by raising the possibility that China might have to fight a multifront war to conquer Taiwan.

[snip]
Please don't post trash articles by economically illiterate and innumerate simpletons. This is just an exercise in "garbage in, garbage out." And the military "analysis" is of the same quality as the economics.
 

weig2000

Captain
Please don't post trash articles by economically illiterate and innumerate simpletons. This is just an exercise in "garbage in, garbage out." And the military "analysis" is of the same quality as the economics.

Well, these are some of the ideas put forward by various people. Foreign Affairs is a well-read magazine in the diplomatic and strategic circles. It's worth paying attention to. The ideas may or may not be very plausible, but you should read between the lines.
 

ZeEa5KPul

Colonel
Registered Member
Well, these are some of the ideas put forward by various people. Foreign Affairs is a well-read magazine in the diplomatic and strategic circles. It's worth paying attention to. The ideas may or may not be very plausible, but you should read between the lines.
When someone like Hal Brands writes for a purportedly flagship publication like Foreign Affairs, that shows what kind of barrel America is scraping the bottom of. I read both the excerpt you posted about the military prospects and the rest of the article, and it's just a sorry fantasy that indicates how far the balance of power has shifted and how desperate the US has become.

But it's ultimately the US's own fault for digging itself into a hole there's no climbing out of. It's staked its credibility on defending Taiwan, and there's just no way to keep a superpower from absorbing a small island a couple of hundred kilometers off its coast. None whatsoever, no matter what America and its pipe dream coalition does. I understand the purpose of this thread is to look at the technical military capabilities of the RoC dispassionately, but let's be serious here - what can a 700 ton corvette (if it even merits the term) possibly hope to accomplish against China's already overwhelming and ever-growing firepower?
 

weig2000

Captain
When someone like Hal Brands writes for a purportedly flagship publication like Foreign Affairs, that shows what kind of barrel America is scraping the bottom of. I read both the excerpt you posted about the military prospects and the rest of the article, and it's just a sorry fantasy that indicates how far the balance of power has shifted and how desperate the US has become.

But it's ultimately the US's own fault for digging itself into a hole there's no climbing out of. It's staked its credibility on defending Taiwan, and there's just no way to keep a superpower from absorbing a small island a couple of hundred kilometers off its coast. None whatsoever, no matter what America and its pipe dream coalition does. I understand the purpose of this thread is to look at the technical military capabilities of the RoC dispassionately, but let's be serious here - what can a 700 ton corvette (if it even merits the term) possibly hope to accomplish against China's already overwhelming and ever-growing firepower?

If you noticed, hardly anyone seriously proposes sending a couple of aircraft carriers to around Taiwan if/when the next crisis occurs, like the US did in the last crisis in 1996. Hal Brands even suggests cutting funding to aircraft carriers, something forbidden by Congress. Barely five years ago, there were still debates in SDF about whether China's ASBM was a hoax. Now it's all about asymmetry, distributed lethality, missiles and drones.

Given the shift in the balance of power across and around Taiwan Strait, all sorts of ideas will be put forward. As I said earlier in this thread, it will have to run its course. They do have implications, though.
 

Mr T

Senior Member
Of course, the asymmetric warfare strategy might stop an amphibious assault (at least before massed formations of amphibious and amphibiously transported autonomous UGVs become a thing), but it won't stop the Mainland from cutting traffic to and from Taiwan by regularly bombarding ports and airports.

That is true. Although if China's strategy was by choice or necessity a stand-off one, it would give the US time to organise a response to convince China to stand down, whether by showing sufficient resolve and force (Beijing then tries to claim it was just proving a point to dissuade UDI), or by breaking a blockade and resupplying Taiwan.

If you noticed, hardly anyone seriously proposes sending a couple of aircraft carriers to around Taiwan if/when the next crisis occurs, like the US did in the last crisis in 1996.

Depends what you mean by "around". I think any change in views are more an acknowledgment that it would be suicide to do anything other than keep them stationed far off Taiwan's east coast. The US would need to use its navy as part of a multi-force response, and sending the navy in without carrier air support would be like fighting with one arm tied behind your back. There's only so much that land-based aircraft could do.

In terms of Hal Brands and like-minded authors, people have been predicting the end of the carrier for the best part of half a century, but new defensive systems have always come around to restore confidence in them. I don't think they're going to go the way of the battleship just yet (you may agree on that).

Thanks for the article by the way.
 

Mr T

Senior Member
Armament: 76mm gun, Phalanx CIWS, 8 HF-2 AShM, 4 HF-3 AShM, 16 anti-air version of TC-II missile, 4 7.62mm MG (still not sure if there will be torpedoes)

tupolevtu, thanks for all the pictures. Where on the plan are the TC-II launchers - are they in box-launchers in the central area next to the HF-IIs and HF-IIIs or somewhere else?

Also is it confirmed that they'll now have 4 x HF-IIIs? Most of the articles I've read still say 8 HF-IIs and 8 HF-IIIs, albeit that could be old information based on the original design.
 

silentlurker

Junior Member
Registered Member
What's the point of having 7.62 on a ship? I seriously doubt the caliber is sufficient for CIWS or AA. For shooting point blank suicide drones?
 

ZeEa5KPul

Colonel
Registered Member
That is true. Although if China's strategy was by choice or necessity a stand-off one, it would give the US time to organise a response to convince China to stand down, whether by showing sufficient resolve and force (Beijing then tries to claim it was just proving a point to dissuade UDI), or by breaking a blockade and resupplying Taiwan.
Your inane attempts at soft-trolling can't obscure the fact that the day will come when there is absolutely nothing the US can do to stop China from taking Taiwan. If the US sends its entire navy, it loses its entire navy.
Thanks for the article by the way.
@weig2000, if people like this are praising an article you post, you might want to take a moment to think about whether that article is worth posting.
 

AndrewS

Brigadier
Registered Member
When someone like Hal Brands writes for a purportedly flagship publication like Foreign Affairs, that shows what kind of barrel America is scraping the bottom of. I read both the excerpt you posted about the military prospects and the rest of the article, and it's just a sorry fantasy that indicates how far the balance of power has shifted and how desperate the US has become.

But it's ultimately the US's own fault for digging itself into a hole there's no climbing out of. It's staked its credibility on defending Taiwan, and there's just no way to keep a superpower from absorbing a small island a couple of hundred kilometers off its coast. None whatsoever, no matter what America and its pipe dream coalition does. I understand the purpose of this thread is to look at the technical military capabilities of the RoC dispassionately, but let's be serious here - what can a 700 ton corvette (if it even merits the term) possibly hope to accomplish against China's already overwhelming and ever-growing firepower?

I agree wholeheartedly that the article is woeful and premised on economic illiteracy.

But the article is worth discussing, because it is very influential in US policy making.

---

The article talks about a "decadelong sprint" in which China has a window of opportunity to act

The official Chinese goal is to double GDP in the next 15 years and also become hi-tech.
An average of 5% growth per year should be feasible to meet this goal.
And the National Science Foundation already reports China spending more on R&D than the US.

So if anything, it will be China that will have left the US far behind in terms of economic and technological heft in 10 years time.
 
Top