Taiwan's Reaction to PLA Force Modernization

hkbc · Jun 9, 2007

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

QUOTE]

Isn't this an oxymoron how can you gain air superiority without sending planes up? If they relied only on SAMs then they'll leave themselves open to suppression attacks by ARMs with no means of response.

Jeff Head · Jun 9, 2007

hkbc said:
Clouded Leopard said:

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

QUOTE]

Isn't this an oxymoron how can you gain air superiority without sending planes up? If they relied only on SAMs then they'll leave themselves open to suppression attacks by ARMs with no means of response.

Click to expand...

I think he is saying that if the ROCAF fighters lay back, in the air, behind the SAM screen, then they can use that tactic to force the PLAAF to come to them in an environment where the ROCAF had a much better chance of keeping the PLAAF from obtaining air superiority...not in achieving it themselves.

The issue is denial to the PLAAF which will need air superiority in order to effect any crossing of the straits.

Let's all hope and pray we never have to find out.

Clouded Leopard · Jun 9, 2007

Vlad Plasmius said:
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?

Well, there really are few military things nowadays that fall strictly into a "purely offensive" or "purely defensive" category. Almost anything can be used for both attack and defense.

Taiwan's F-16s can be used for offensive purposes, same for the diesel submarines that the US has offered for sale.

And while a refueling tanker can be used for deep strike missions, it also can have a defensive purpose: It can refuel fighters that are doing air patrols, or it can help damaged aircraft go home safely, or it can refuel fighters and allow them to stay in the air while their damaged airfields are repaired.

Vlad Plasmius · Jun 9, 2007

Well, there really are few military things nowadays that fall strictly into a "purely offensive" or "purely defensive" category. Almost anything can be used for both attack and defense.

Taiwan's F-16s can be used for offensive purposes, same for the diesel submarines that the US has offered for sale.

And while a refueling tanker can be used for deep strike missions, it also can have a defensive purpose: It can refuel fighters that are doing air patrols, or it can help damaged aircraft go home safely, or it can refuel fighters and allow them to stay in the air while their damaged airfields are repaired.

True, but a refueling tanker would give Taiwan the ability strike every Chinese coastal city, even Beijing. Not that they could do much effectively, but they could certainly terrorize the Chinese people.

Deleted member 675 · Jun 10, 2007

Vlad Plasmius said:
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.

Nice try, but I still disagree it would be that easy for China. What the ROCAF is doing is hedging its bets - i.e. if the worst-case scenario happens, they would have the option of in-flight refuelling. It's not sensible to base your policies on statistics/probability, but that wouldn't change the fact China would have a tough time in knocking out enough of those bases for a long enough period of time.

Additionally, tankers would be useful even if ROCAF bases were not that badly hit, because fighters could be kept on station for longer.

On a side note, the fact you mention them being used in an offensive capability would further undermine your belief that it's because of a "grave" Chinese missile threat. I doubt they would be used that way, though, unless the air war was as good as lost and Taipei wanted to make China bleed as much as it could.

Skywatcher · Jun 10, 2007

Wouldn't the tankers draw off some ROCAF fighters for escort duty if the SAM network gets too degraded/depleted by continued SSM saturation?

The Harriers seem to be getting a bit long in the tooth. And I'm not sure of their desirability for anything other than interdiction of amphibious PLA forces (A Harrier fighting with a J-10 sounds rather one sided), which could be done with MRLS or attack helicopters.

Deleted member 675 · Jun 10, 2007

Skywatcher said:
Wouldn't the tankers draw off some ROCAF fighters for escort duty if the SAM network gets too degraded/depleted by continued SSM saturation?

I doubt fighters could easily escort tankers if they were operating in a vulnerable area. It would probably be more the case that they'd be kept back in safer areas - no point in having them if they're going to use up valuable resources. Maybe a couple of IDFs could be used as a roaming patrol if they weren't needed elsewhere.

To be honest you'd have to ask someone with knowledge of how tankers are normally deployed where air-to-air combat is taking place in the region/area.

The Harriers seem to be getting a bit long in the tooth. And I'm not sure of their desirability for anything other than interdiction of amphibious PLA forces (A Harrier fighting with a J-10 sounds rather one sided), which could be done with MRLS or attack helicopters.

I think it's unlikely the ROCAF would go along with that. I think it's more the case of a study being made so that all the facts are taken into account, even if they already know it probably wouldn't be a good idea.

Vlad Plasmius · Jun 10, 2007

Nice try, but I still disagree it would be that easy for China. What the ROCAF is doing is hedging its bets - i.e. if the worst-case scenario happens, they would have the option of in-flight refuelling. It's not sensible to base your policies on statistics/probability, but that wouldn't change the fact China would have a tough time in knocking out enough of those bases for a long enough period of time.

No, worst-case scenario is far worse than that. Taking the airbases out of commission is most likely the first thing the Chinese will do and they have plenty of ways to do that. Ballistic missiles aren't the only weapon they have, that's just the one that puts less lives on the line.

Additionally, tankers would be useful even if ROCAF bases were not that badly hit, because fighters could be kept on station for longer.

True, but it does beg the question of where exactly these tankers are going to be stationed. I figure the east coast would be a likely choice given it's less likely to be hit in an attack.

On a side note, the fact you mention them being used in an offensive capability would further undermine your belief that it's because of a "grave" Chinese missile threat. I doubt they would be used that way, though, unless the air war was as good as lost and Taipei wanted to make China bleed as much as it could.

How does that undermine it exactly?

I think it's unlikely the ROCAF would go along with that. I think it's more the case of a study being made so that all the facts are taken into account, even if they already know it probably wouldn't be a good idea.

If they could actually purchase the F-35B that would be a good choice, but I doubt they would have the funds for that.

Deleted member 675 · Jun 10, 2007

Vlad Plasmius said:
No, worst-case scenario is far worse than that.

In terms of damage to bases, obviously it would have to be.

True, but it does beg the question of where exactly these tankers are going to be stationed. I figure the east coast would be a likely choice given it's less likely to be hit in an attack.

Maybe. That's something for the ROCAF to work out.

If they could actually purchase the F-35B that would be a good choice, but I doubt they would have the funds for that.

Depends how many they would want to buy. But I think they could afford a fair number of the standard, with maybe a smaller B buy. Depends on what the price was by the time it was offered.

hkbc · Jun 10, 2007

Jeff Head said:
hkbc said:

I think he is saying that if the ROCAF fighters lay back, in the air, behind the SAM screen, then they can use that tactic to force the PLAAF to come to them in an environment where the ROCAF had a much better chance of keeping the PLAAF from obtaining air superiority...not in achieving it themselves.

The issue is denial to the PLAAF which will need air superiority in order to effect any crossing of the straits.

Let's all hope and pray we never have to find out.

Click to expand...

That would be reasonable but for the fact

1) The strait of taiwan is not that wide and taiwan is not that big, so the airspace over taiwan would be a little crowded since the respective ranges of the PRC and ROC land based SAM batteries means there's an over lap in their respective kill zones along most of the western tawainese sea board (gets worse if the AAW destroyers are factored in) staying behind one SAM "shield" and not straying into the other doesn't leave that much airspace to defend but leaves plenty of air space for the PLAAF to attack the SAM installations and other targets with relative impunity using ARMs and ASMs!

2) The PLAAF will be taking an offensive strategy any way, they aren't going to take back taiwan by sitting behind their SAM shield, so you might as well engage early and hard to blunt their subsequent sorties, every plane they leave to get back for re-armament and re-fueling is another set of bombs and missiles they'll have to deal with.

Taiwan's Reaction to PLA Force Modernization

hkbc

Junior Member

Jeff Head

General

Clouded Leopard

Junior Member

Vlad Plasmius

Junior Member

Deleted member 675

Guest

Skywatcher

Captain

Deleted member 675

Guest

Vlad Plasmius

Junior Member

Deleted member 675

Guest

hkbc

Junior Member