Taiwan military news and discussion part II

Originally Posted by otester

Taiwan needs heavy SAM defenses

Betting the farm on someone else coming to your aid is sheer folly. Here's the locally built TC-2 mobile ADS mounted on truck. Wonder what the radar vehicle looks like though.




They were supposed to install these to ROC Navy ships in box launchers, not sure what the progress is.

The French has successfully tested the MICA missile for both land-based and ship-based systems:
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/vlmica/


Naval VL-MICA promotional video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c_u-5GGqjT8

The French may install them to the ship's sides and not the usual front deck location:


It's a more elegant solution to the Canadian Halifax frigate's installation of VL Sea Sparrow:



These are good examples for the ROC military to look at for possible use of TC-2 SAM. Improved domestically built land-based SHORAD system, and naval variant (both VL and slanted box launcher type) for fitting to existing and future ships.

Originally Posted by adeptitus

Better the farm on someone else coming to your aid is sheer folly. Here's the locally built TC-2 mobile ADS mounted on truck. Wonder what the radar vehicle looks like though.

[qimg]http://tw.f14.yahoofs.com/myper/1Ln_SHSBBRn5o_uKdxEqD0Qm/blog/ap_20070816100349680.jpg?TTc.LiIB1LvA.GTn[/qimg]
[qimg]http://tw.f14.yahoofs.com/myper/1Ln_SHSBBRn5o_uKdxEqD0Qm/blog/ap_20070816100358266.jpg?TTc.LiIB1usppl75[/qimg]

They were supposed to install these to ROC Navy ships in box launchers, not sure what the progress is.

The French has successfully tested the MICA missile for both land-based and ship-based systems:
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/vlmica/


Naval VL-MICA promotional video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c_u-5GGqjT8

The French may install them to the ship's sides and not the usual front deck location:


It's a more elegant solution to the Canadian Halifax frigate's installation of VL Sea Sparrow:



These are good examples for the ROC military to look at for possible use of TC-2 SAM. Improved domestically built land-based SHORAD system, and naval variant (both VL and slanted box launcher type) for fitting to existing and future ships.

Problem is they are all short range, has Taiwan acquired the Patriot yet? RIM-66 or Aster 30 missiles would be handy for Naval vessels.

YJ-91 (Kh-31P) is ranged at 110km, Taiwanese defenses will need to exceed that.

Odd thing isn't it, Taiwan is trying to develop a more professional and high tech army, however with the downsizing it hasn't achieved what it is suppose to and has instead created a low morale atmosphere and left many parts of the "First Line of Defence" undefended. Theres way more to rant about, but I can't be bothered because thats how the military is going to continue to be under this administration.

They have PATRIOT II, supposedly I thought the PAC III upgrades were approved 6 months before the arms freeze. So who knows whats going to happen.....

Originally Posted by kliu0

Odd thing isn't it, Taiwan is trying to develop a more professional and high tech army, however with the downsizing it hasn't achieved what it is suppose to and has instead created a low morale atmosphere and left many parts of the "First Line of Defence" undefended. Theres way more to rant about, but I can't be bothered because thats how the military is going to continue to be under this administration.

They have PATRIOT II, supposedly I thought the PAC III upgrades were approved 6 months before the arms freeze. So who knows whats going to happen.....

PAC-3 supposedly has better PK vs. BMs but has a significantly reduced range.

Sky Bow I/II looks promising though with 100/200km range, Sky Bow III is probably a better investment than the Patriot, I think, maybe just upgrade the current PAC-2s to the PAC-3 standard as Sky Bow isn't as good vs. BMs.

Originally Posted by otester

PAC-3 supposedly has better PK vs. BMs but has a significantly reduced range.

Sky Bow I/II looks promising though with 100/200km range, Sky Bow III is probably a better investment than the Patriot, I think, maybe just upgrade the current PAC-2s to the PAC-3 standard as Sky Bow isn't as good vs. BMs.

Meh, if so they shouldn't upgrade their PAC 2 to PAC 3 instead buy them separately so that they can have both PAC II and PAC III. Sky Bow I is being phased out (by 2011 or 2015 something like that) and being replaced with Sky Bow II. Sky Bow III is being developed to form an Anti-Ballistic missile shield.

Originally Posted by kliu0

Meh, if so they shouldn't upgrade their PAC 2 to PAC 3 instead buy them separately so that they can have both PAC II and PAC III. Sky Bow I is being phased out (by 2011 or 2015 something like that) and being replaced with Sky Bow II. Sky Bow III is being developed to form an Anti-Ballistic missile shield.

Also the PAC-3 is readily available, getting a few PAC-3s should be priority along with Sky Bow II/III development, as invasion could be at any time, so when the Sky Bow III is available, sell off the remaining PAC's to a European country which will need them to complete the missile shield and Taiwan can keep themselves self-sufficient in SAM/ABM production.

Why not keep it all.....expand air defense coverage.....they weren't free when we bought em you know.....

Originally Posted by kliu0

Why not keep it all.....expand air defense coverage.....they weren't free when we bought em you know.....

Well another, possibly better possibility is Taiwan waits for Sky Bow II deployment to be completed and then upgrade the current PAC-2's to the PAC-3 standard, then later the Sky Bow III's can be deployed as well, since they are probably cheaper as they are mobile.

Originally Posted by otester

When I joined this forum I looked for rule threads since I thought political discussion on a sino forum would be unacceptable but I found none, sorry if I caused any tension.

Apology accecpted. I understand any confusion on your part. HOWEVER>>> The no politcs was an unwritten rule as long as this forum has been standing.. .The rules have been modified to include no politics.

FORUM Rules. ALL members please READ!!

An excerpt from the rules;
[*]Posts containing personal attack, swearing, political propaganda, and commercial advertisement
[*]Posts that are offensive to any ethnic or religious groups or government. This isent political forum
[*]Posts that prompt hatred between different countries or groups of people
[*]Meaningless arguments and inappropriate provocation of other members
[*]Any other posts that the moderators/administrator regard as inappropriate
[*]Any post containing solely article of some others, without comments of the poster, this includes links also. You are responsible of the content of your links so do not post trash
[*]Any post that violates universally authors moral right to his own text. So do not even think about plagiating. Always provide a source if quoting someone else
[*] Political issues of any sort will not be discussed

And at the beginning of this thread read the entire first post. It has speical rules for this thread. Thank you.

Taiwan military news and discussion part II




bd popeye super moderator

Originally Posted by otester

PAC-3 supposedly has better PK vs. BMs but has a significantly reduced range.

The Patriot upgrade is just the firing launchers, tracking systems etc. The missiles will still be the same so they should have the same range - the PAC-3 missiles are what reduces the range.

Plus I think theres some misunderstanding. Against incoming missiles PAC-3 has a shorter range but I think against aircraft they might not be quite so restricted.

Originally Posted by Mr T

The Patriot upgrade is just the firing launchers, tracking systems etc. The missiles will still be the same so they should have the same range - the PAC-3 missiles are what reduces the range.

Plus I think theres some misunderstanding. Against incoming missiles PAC-3 has a shorter range but I think against aircraft they might not be quite so restricted.

From the sources I looked it seems the short range may have only taken PAC-3 missile vs. BMs, is there any way to confirm that a longer range is possible against aircraft? Since the canisters are smaller on the PAC-3 than the PAC-2.

Sky Bow (TK-1) SAM is basically licensed US Patriot system technology, CIST paid Raytheon (maker of MIM-104 Patriot) $1.1 billion dollars for the components and technology transfer. TK-2 and TK-3 are further improvements, toward a domestic "missile shield" program. Here's a pic of TK-3:



MIM-104 Patriot PAC2 mobile launcher carried 4 missiles, versus PAC3 carried up to 16. The PAC3 missiles are smaller and with shorter range, but allowed the system to quad-pack in separate containers like this:



Missile defense is one of very few areas where the ROC military has invested decent amount of funds in. With Patriot and Sky Bow systems, they're working toward an effective ABM shield. At least the TK-1/2/3 systems are locally built and provides local jobs. I wonder what the potential of adopting TK missiles for naval use is? The Russians did it with S-300's.

Patriot and TK SAM is only one aspect of air defense. You also need medium and short range SAM, MANPADs, CIWS, AA guns, etc. At the infantry level, ROC Army and Marine's air defense capability could use a boost.

The FIM-92 Stinger Block II upgrade status is currently unknown. This is another area where ROC defense industry could invest in. A new updated MANPAD missile built with domestic and imported technologies. The missile can be adopted for ground to air, ground to ground, air to air, and naval use.

Originally Posted by adeptitus

Sky Bow (TK-1) SAM is basically licensed US Patriot system technology, CIST paid Raytheon (maker of MIM-104 Patriot) $1.1 billion dollars for the components and technology transfer.

Aha I see.


The long range Aster 30 looks best for naval defense though imo.

In this post we'll explore ROCN's domestic warship & aircraft building possibilities.

Under current political realities, it's very unlikely that the ROCN can import warships and naval weapons from foreign suppliers other than the US. European suppliers are willing to provide certain components, such as engines, electronics, sensors, etc., but items like Aster SAM, and even RIM-116 (US-German product) are out of reach. The US, being cautious about maintaining the status quo, will only provide limited defensive armaments and munitions to ROC.

Taiwan CSBC Corp had license built 8 OH Perry class FFG's in 1990's, the last one completed in 2002. Both Australia and Turkey have developed upgrade programs for their OH Perry class ships. The upgrade adds an 8-cel Mk.41 VLS (for quad-packed ESSM) in front of Mk.13 launcher, and the Mk.13 launcher itself to handle SM-2MR and Harpoon SSM's. Here's a pic of Mk.41 VLS on HMAS Sydney:



The Australian upgrade ran into various technical problems, but they're spending the time and effort to fix it. If ROCN opt to follow this example, they'd benefit from Australian and Turkish experience and not reinvent the wheel. The ROCN OH Perry ships are fairly new, unlike the Knox (40 years old) and Kidd (30 years old). Plus they were built with longer hulls, so hull-extensions aren't necessary.

Should the US agree to export the upgrade components, ROCN OH Perry class FFG's could carry up to 40 x SM-2 rounds (or other missiles) in the Mk.13 launcher, plus 8 x 4 = 32 ESSM in the 8-cel VLS. Combined with upgraded sensors, it'd improve ROCN AAW capability with existing fleet.

If the upgrade is too expensive, if the US is unwilling to export ESSM, the 8-cel VLS can still be installed and loaded with SM-2MR SAM (or other munitions, such as VL-ASROC) as an incremental upgrade.

================

In early 1990's, the ROCN had considered building its own Aegis warship under the Tien Dan program. The original plan was to install AN/SPY-1F on 4 enlarged OH Perry hull, built by CSBC. The plan was later abandoned due to technical uncertainties.

Moving forward, European navies have successfully integrated the Aegis system on platforms such as the Fridtjof Nasen class FFG (5,290 tons loaded), and the Alvaro de Bazan class FFG (6,250 tons loaded).



I'd like to see this plan revived, for construction of 4 x 5,000 - 6,000 ton displacement AAW FFG's, at the cost of no more than $4 to $5 billion USD. The Europeans already did their work on figuring out how to integrate the various systems with US input, so again, it's not reinventing the wheel.

The basic parameters of the ship is AN/SPY-1D or 1F sensors, "export" grade Aegis combat management system from US, 4 x 8 to 6 x 8 Mk.41 VLS cels, main gun, CIWS gun, torpedoes, 8 x SSM, ASW helicopter, sonar/decoy, etc.

==================================

In the event that the US refuse to export advanced ship technology and Aegis sensors/systems, the ROCN might want to consider "plan B" with its own AAW ship. Some of you will think I'm completely nuts here, basically I'm suggesting a ROCN version of the PLAN 051C. Instead of S-300/SA-N-6, ROCN will use naval version of TK-2/3 SAM, TC-2 SAM, and HF-2/3 SSM, along with licensed copies of phased-array radar system from Lockheed Martian (currently used for TK systems).



The ship's displacement will be 5,000 to 6,000 tons, with 4x8 or 6x8 square-lid type VLS for TK-2/3 naval VL-SAM in front, 2 x 8 cel naval TC-2 VL-SAM along the smoke stack, and 2 x 4 ce HF-2/3 SSM in center. There would be sufficient space in the aft deck for helicopter/UAV hanger, unlike 051C. The ship's primary role will be AAW but still carry decent ASW systems. It'd also have the usual main gun, CIWS, torpedoes, helicopter, etc.

Afterwards I'd suggest licensing Patriot PAC3 technology for newer & smaller TK-X SAM that could be quad-packed like existing PAC3 systems. This way the limited number of VL cels on the ship can allocate some for quad-packed TK-X like ESSM. if you license the technology for local manufacture, you gain some reference-engineering capability in case of arms embargo.

===============

A bigger FAC/Missile Boat

The Kuang Hua VI class FAC is small (180 tons) and lightly armed. OK for hit and run, but not much use beyond that. I'd like to see a larger FAC with 400-500 ton displacement, armed with Oto 76mm or Bofors 57mm Mk3 gun in front, 4 x SSM, and a medium RCWS in the back that could be used for 20mm-40mm AC or AC + missile mount.


===============

ROCAF

The F-5 E/F are facing retirement, and F-16 C/D purchase is delayed. I'd suggest upgrading existing fleet of IDF to C/D standard as an interim solution.



AIDC had offered to manufacture IDF LIFT variants for $16 million each. Cheap, but this is really not where they should be heading. They should revive the older upgrade projects, such as the more powerful TFE-1042-70A or GE J101/SF engines (or better), increased fuel (CFTs?) & payload capacity, and build ~120 new fighter aircraft (IDF-E/F? IDF-XL?). After the new aircraft enters service, the older A/B and C/D variants can be delegated to combat trainer duty.

Recently, I read an article about Korea's KF-X program (120 aircraft) estimates being placed at $10 billion:
http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news...116_28106.html

This is quite a number and would probably give Taiwan's ADF program pause. I think the ROC should allocate funds to ADF R&D and feasibility study. If the US won't supply advanced combat jets in the future, then ROC has no choice but the do it the "IDF" way. Assuming cost is similar to Korean estimates, 120 jets at $10 billion comes out to $83.3 million each.