Taiwan's Reaction to PLA Force Modernization

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jeff Head

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
Clouded Leopard said:
The USS Barbel was the last diesel sub ever built in the United States. It's a fairly modern design, and I guess it could be fixed up with modern electronics and attack systems.
Click to expand...
Actually, the USS Barbel, SS-580, was the first of class. Two others were built after her, the USS Blueback, SS-581, and the USS Bonefish, SS-582

They were, for their time, a fairly radical new design that many vessels have been based on since. First production tear drop design in the US, first US sub to use a control center in the hull instead of the sail, etc.

Barbel was commissioned in January 1959 and decommissioned in December 1989, 31 years later. Pretty good service life for a diesel sub. They had 2600 ton displacement, a 19,000 mile range unrefueled, 6 21 inch tubes, 18 torpedoes, 15 knot surface speed, and 21 knot submerged.

The other two, USS Bonefish was commissioned in July 1959, and USS Blueback in October 1959.

ss580_1.jpg


USS Blueback is now a memorial in oregon, since 1994.

ussblueback_e310.jpg
 
F

fishhead

Banned Idiot
Jeff Head said:
Actually, the USS Barbel, SS-580, was the first of class. Two others were built after her, the USS Blueback, SS-581, and the USS Bonefish, SS-582

They were, for their time, a fairly radical new design that many vessels have been based on since. First production tear drop design in the US, first US sub to use a control center in the hull instead of the sail, etc.

Barbel was commissioned in January 1959 and decommissioned in December 1989, 31 years later. Pretty good service life for a diesel sub. They had 2600 ton displacement, a 19,000 mile range unrefueled, 6 21 inch tubes, 18 torpedoes, 15 knot surface speed, and 21 knot submerged.

The other two, USS Bonefish was commissioned in July 1959, and USS Blueback in October 1959.
Click to expand...

Nice explaination.

I read a Chinese defence expert comparing the difference thinking btwn US and China navy. US abandoned the diesel sub since they operate in ocean, while Chinese are still focued on close shore shallow sea.

What about diesel sub vs nuclear sub in close shore shallow sea? Sounds quite unfair to nuclear subs. Also diesel sub is quiter than nuke sub, right?
 
Jeff Head

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
fishhead said:
Nice explaination.

I read a Chinese defence expert comparing the difference thinking btwn US and China navy. US abandoned the diesel sub since they operate in ocean, while Chinese are still focued on close shore shallow sea.

What about diesel sub vs nuclear sub in close shore shallow sea? Sounds quite unfair to nuclear subs. Also diesel sub is quiter than nuke sub, right?
Click to expand...
Well, the US has been looking at this issue for a number of years now. The Virginia class SSNs are designed to take the fight into the littorals, so you can bet that there is some very significant technology that has been designed into them, both from acquiring SS vessels, to quieting their own.

In any case, the newer AIP diesel/electrics are very dangerous foes for any vessel that comes upon them, including SSNs. I do not think they could keep up with the SSNs or large task forces on the high seas, but in more confined waters, where an SS can wait...it would be a very tough fight on both sides.
 
D

Deleted member 675

Guest
I'm not sure how SSKs got into a discussion about the ROCAF, but apparently they're going to be built in the US. Half the problem with the project is that the US has currently ruled out a domestic build, which is why you don't see much money being stumped up at the moment.

That might change if the KMT win the Presidential election next year.
 
C

Clouded Leopard

Junior Member
FuManChu said:
I'm not sure how SSKs got into a discussion about the ROCAF, but apparently they're going to be built in the US. Half the problem with the project is that the US has currently ruled out a domestic build, which is why you don't see much money being stumped up at the moment.

That might change if the KMT win the Presidential election next year.
Click to expand...

If the KMT wins, the SSK funding would probably go ahead, yes.


It will probably be funny to hear the KMT defend its new change of policy after having blasted the subs for 7 years. Certainly the submarines will be as expensive as they've ever been, (and they say they don't support the purchase based on "exorbitant prices") so what will they say when they win in 2008 and then start to support the arms purchases they opposed?
 
D

Deleted member 675

Guest
Clouded Leopard said:
so what will they say when they win in 2008 and then start to support the arms purchases they opposed?
Click to expand...

Something along the lines of "now that we are in government and have access to information that the evil DPP kept out of our hands we now know that the submarines are a reasonable deal that will blaa-blaa-blaa-blaa, etc."
 
Chengdu J-10

Chengdu J-10

Junior Member
FuManChu said:
Erm, one needs evidence for that. Just because other countries have had problems does not mean Taiwan by default must. Besides, is China immune from similar problems?

The point I made was that he was making a wild accusation that the PLAAF would achieve air-superiority (not just that it would have the edge) because one fighter type had somewhat poor availability. Problems with the Mirage would help China in that respect, but not make it certain at all.

I came across an article from a Taiwanese newspaper, where the ROCAF said the availability of its planes currently is:

  • IDF: 63%, which they will raise to 75%
  • Mirage 2000-5: 65% (up from 54% in media reports last month) - they will improve this once they receive more parts in September that had been delayed
  • F-16: 75%

I think 75% is the ministerial target, though I don't know whether that's minimum, optimum, etc.
Click to expand...
WILD ACCUSATION....man you have got to pick your words carefully or I'll take it personally next time. My last post wasnt just from typing in what I think but from pure visible evidence. So you better think twice next time before abusing.

ROCAF have 3 different aircrafts basically and all then combined even if all were operational and combat ready would not exceed 500. PLAAF have 4 different modern aircrafts (not including ground attack, etc.) approaching or passed the 400 mark. Now this is just the modern ones, but lets not forget the J-7/8 exceeding 600 in just these 2 aircrafts. Wether or not that they can perform effectively in Tawain is another case.

So the PLAAF exceed the ROCAF in sheer numbers of aircrafts not just the less modern ones but also the modern ones too. Most PLAAF aircrafts are operational but if not will soon be online. PLAAF enjoy a bigger budget then the ROCAF so case closed. The Flanker and Jian fleets get spoiled (just an expression) with parts and maintenance. They are piloted by PLAAF elites.

Wether or not PLAAF pilots are better then ROCAF is for another thread. But the point is sheer numbers still count no matter what. Along with PLAAF/NF ground attack they can destroy most airbases and highway stripps to disable ROCAF aircrafts from landing. So where will the ROCAF go??? Fight to death or bail out. So PLAAF has gained air superioty, along with China's UCAV (remoted J-7) the can over stress ROCAF radar and air defence.

Also ROCAF cannot fly much beyond their territory, cause PLA have got most of China's east coast covered with SAM's that reach Tawains coast line.

Last thing I know its interesting but why is there a Submarine talk in an Aviation area??? LOL
 
C

Clouded Leopard

Junior Member
Chengdu J-10 said:
WILD ACCUSATION....man you have got to pick your words carefully or I'll take it personally next time. My last post wasnt just from typing in what I think but from pure visible evidence. So you better think twice next time before abusing.

ROCAF have 3 different aircrafts basically and all then combined even if all were operational and combat ready would not exceed 500. PLAAF have 4 different modern aircrafts (not including ground attack, etc.) approaching or passed the 400 mark. Now this is just the modern ones, but lets not forget the J-7/8 exceeding 600 in just these 2 aircrafts. Wether or not that they can perform effectively in Tawain is another case.

So the PLAAF exceed the ROCAF in sheer numbers of aircrafts not just the less modern ones but also the modern ones too. Most PLAAF aircrafts are operational but if not will soon be online. PLAAF enjoy a bigger budget then the ROCAF so case closed. The Flanker and Jian fleets get spoiled (just an expression) with parts and maintenance. They are piloted by PLAAF elites.

Wether or not PLAAF pilots are better then ROCAF is for another thread. But the point is sheer numbers still count no matter what. Along with PLAAF/NF ground attack they can destroy most airbases and highway stripps to disable ROCAF aircrafts from landing. So where will the ROCAF go??? Fight to death or bail out. So PLAAF has gained air superioty, along with China's UCAV (remoted J-7) the can over stress ROCAF radar and air defence.

Also ROCAF cannot fly much beyond their territory, cause PLA have got most of China's east coast covered with SAM's that reach Tawains coast line.

Last thing I know its interesting but why is there a Submarine talk in an Aviation area??? LOL
Click to expand...


Essentially you are saying that superior PLAAF numbers will overwhelm smaller ROCAF numbers. But tactics should be taken into account.


Taiwan could choose not to send any fighters over the Strait, and rather, use its SAMs as a cushion to absorb and repel attacks.


Do not forget also that offensive missiles will play a role in both sides. China will use Dong Fengs on Taiwanese air bases, and Taiwan will use HF-2Es and Wan Jiens on Chinese air bases.


Finally, does anyone know what the ROCAF's battle plan is? I'm very curious, perhaps they send fighters up over the Strait, or don't, and play a sort of "hide, scoot-and-shoot?"
 
D

Deleted member 675

Guest
Chengdu J-10 said:
WILD ACCUSATION....man you have got to pick your words carefully or I'll take it personally next time. My last post wasnt just from typing in what I think but from pure visible evidence. So you better think twice next time before abusing.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure where it says in your reply that because the Mirages have a low availability it means the PLAAF will achieve air superiority. However, more importantly, any current problems in numbers appear to be temporary from the said article I came across. So unless China's going to be off to invade Taiwan before the year is out, Mirage availability isn't that much of an issue.
 
V

Vlad Plasmius

Junior Member
Taiwan is wanting some refueling planes and Harriers.

Taiwan has asked the United States for aerial refueling planes and is considering leasing vertical take-off and landing jets to help counter the threat from China, a defense official said on Friday.

The aim is to maintain the combat ability of the island's air force in the event of a Chinese attack on its airfields.
Click to expand...

The defense Ministry official declined to say what kind of aerial refueling aircraft had been requested or how many.

"If our airfields are destroyed by attack, then it will be necessary to have the option of refueling in the air so as to continue combat operations," said the official on condition of anonymity.

The ministry was also studying the possibility of leasing AV-8B Harrier II jets, made in the United States, the official said, saying their versatility would make them highly suitable in case the island's airfields were knocked out.
Click to expand...

Source:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Well, this shows that, despite people's criticism of my Taiwan war scenarios, that the Taiwanese military considers destruction of their airfields a very legitimate and imminent concern. They obviously recognize how vulnerable they are to such an attack.

However, I'm wondering if aerial refueling aircraft would be provided by the U.S. Aren't there rules that U.S. won't provide Taiwan anything that can be used to attack China? Aerial refueling, if possible to be used on the IDF fighters, in conjunction with air-launched HF-IIE would give Taiwan the ability to strike in larger parts of China.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top