SinoDefence Forum

utelore

Hello all it has been a while.

anyway. I believe the ROC is going the wrong rout in buying or wanting to by high end weapon systems such as aegis/subs and so on. I would go the following.
1. More AD such as patriot and other systems.
2. Much more ATGW such as Javelin, TOW2, and ground launched Hellfire. Thermobaric ATGW against landing ships would cause massive damage to the landing force.
3. ground launched cruise Missiles both ASM and LAM, something that could hit 700 miles into mainland china.
4. professional military. start with its marines and airborne forces and work out from there.
5. Buy a new type of tank or develop their own. Convert their M-60A3 into Israeli Sabra model with 120mm gun.
6. AND most important start a very nationalistic ROTC program in the school system to create a people who will fight to the death to defend their little Island. use a modified Israeli or Swiss model reserve program. every reserve NCO and officer has a assault rifle in the home with a well dispersed armoury system.

This would make it so painful for an opposing force to attack that questions of "can we beat Taiwan" would pop into their minds.

FuManChu

The former has not been authorised for sale to Taiwan, so it isn't a drain on the budget.

The latter is a long-term project and again isn't draining the budget - large chunks of money will only be approved if the R&D phase continues well enough. As for whether Taiwan needs more submarines, you can argue it either way. Some people say it's better to spend that money on land defences, others that if the PLA is able to land in force it'll be all over anyway. It might be best if we didn't go into that now.

Taiwan will shortly (maybe next year?) deploying the Sky Bow III missile, a locally developed missile that is supposedly similar to the Patriot-2. More domestic missile batteries will be built over the next 5 or so years. Also the government is trying to order more Patriots - the 2008 budget is still pending legislative approval.

It already has a considerable number, though more orders will probably come along as the older TOWs need replacing.

Not sure if a 700 mile range is required, but again it's working on its own systems.

You mean volunteer? There is a move towards that, though for obvious reasons it has to be done gradually.

It's on the list of things to buy from all reports - can't buy everything in one go.

That's getting a bit political.

Maybe it's best if you focus on news only - this is what the thread is supposed to be about. The mods are out in force on the thread - given the previous flaming they want people focused on news rather than speculation, dream-team armed forces, etc.

__________________
"Japan is as much of a threat to China, as China is to Japan."

--FuManChu

bd popeye

Fu is correct..stay away from politics. There are plenty of other forums on the internet to discuss politics...NOT here!

bd popeye super moderator

__________________
Discover the Chinese and World Military picture threads!


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


..And the Chinese Daily Life Photo thread!!


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


..And don't forget

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


"I am what I am.... 'Dat's all what I am"

utelore

was not meant to be political in any way. I joined the military because of belonging to a very patriotic Navy/Marine ROTC unit in high school.

The basic building blocks for a professional army is one that is there to fight for ones country because of a deep and profound choice that has its roots based in nationalism, patriotism and a general pride in ones country.

I am not professing nationalism as a political driving force for the discussion but a word that I can articulate that has tie in with other driving forces for the military mind set. You or your nation may have the best equipment but without young men and women taking pride in ones military and wanting to be part in the defence of ones nation is the single most important thing a military can obtain and that is the self sacrifice of ones mind, body and spirit to defend ones nation. Without this military mind set to believe in what you are fighting for you have already lost any up coming conflict.

It is the espritdecorp, the nationalistic pride you have in your fighting unit. The man standing next to you on the field of battle and knowing you are there for each other and for your nation. This is what I have experienced in battle. It was not the equipment or the leadership. It was for the guy next to me and the belief we were fighting for one common goal and that was the defence of our nation.

Readers should take pause in the area of Political correctness and the knee jerk reaction to a word that was taken out of context and not truly understood in the element of the post.

The post from the title is military news and **discussion**. I have studied the ROC and have talked to others with much more knowledge than I on the military of the ROC and a very large percent of the ROC military is conscript and is part of the military out of law rather than by choice and the above mentioned thought process.

Cell phones, lap tops, and toys,More intrest in the latest music band or night club rather than the pride and history in ones country while ignoring or not caring about the 2.5 million man army with 2,000 warplanes and 900 short range ballistic missiles with the intent on achieving the capability of taking over the ROC is not high on the list of things to worry about for the ROC youth. This according to American INTEL ranks high on the list of valid military worries from just a military aspect only. TRADOC and MILINT has this issue on high problem status and is news you will not hear from mainstream media sources. But believe you me American Generals are telling ROC Generals....Get you military operational mindset of your nation together...prepare them...groom them...as America may not be there with 5 carrier battle groups ready to fight china in world war 3. Please learn from this post and don't go into conniption's over a word or MODS just transfer it to the professional section as the maturity level and the ability to take the intent of a word too challenging for this board.

Then again, if one word sets off The PC crowd so unreasonable then maybe I am on the wrong board and will stop posting as the "military mind set" was my intent and not this other crazy stuff....ute over and out.

SampanViking

Hi Ute

Good to see you again

__________________
For uncensored Chinese Politics and Current Affairs join us all at New Century China Forum -http://www.newcenturychina.org/forums

Norfolk

Outstanding Ute! There is no better indicator of the size of the fight in the dog than its fighting spirit, or lack thereof. That the ROC Armed Forces is composed of many people who may be more or less indifferent to the military profession and what it stands for may constitute the deciding factor between victory and defeat. Materialism, consumerism, individualism, general "Me"-ism - all are factors that seriously hinder the ability of many affluent societies to recruit sufficient numbers of good, selfless people who are patriotic and regard the military profession as honourable and vital to the common good of society. And these are factors that are increasingly at work within the PRC as well, particularly in the cities.

But when the pressure is really on, what makes people fight is self-respect. People with self-respect may tend to fear the prospects of exertion, privation, injury, and death less than they do the loss of that respect in the eyes of their closest comrades. Self-respect is not exactly cultivated in affluent societies; "self-esteem" theoretically perhaps, but that is not the same as self-respect by any means. And self-respect belongs most to those who have put "themselves" and their personal aspirations and desires into proper perspective; they exercise restrain and moderation in their aspirations and desires, rather than following and becoming slaves to them be that career, material success, fame, etc.

When all that people look forward to is their own personal future, and without the common good of their own society in mind, their society may have no future.

It's exceedingly rare to see this kind of post on any discussion board -thanks Ute!

Gollevainen

Here's what I replied to Ute earlier as we discussed this issue via PM...

Of your (Utes) feelings about patriotism in general and towards conscription I can understand (taking account of all what i know about US culture and system) But I must say that I wont agree on it some parts. People, expecially those who havent ever experienced conscription usually tends to oversee it by judging it by the shape and behaivor of the young men that are the very conscripts that one nations defence bases on.

Our (Finland's) Military have always based on conscription, and it was the very conscripted army that fougth bravely against the Soviets in WWII and thus kept Finland as only nation in the Axis hemisphere free to decide its own fate after the war was over. Many knows this, but few outside Finland knows that this very army was basicly constructed by so that the officer corps and NCOs came from those that where on the winning "White" side of our civil war in 1918. The reds who lost the war, roughly half of the manpower were kept out of armys main command and sons of the executed or prisoned reds were not allowed to go into the NCO schools without good reasons.
Therefore in 1939 when Stalin attaced us, he had all the strings in the hand to provoke politicall munity inside our army as many had to serve under the command of officers who had been directly involved in the massacares and other horrities that took place in 1918 by the white forces terror.
But no such munity came. Even the communist element of our working class figth well and diciplined, the will to defend ones homes and nation was so strong that it overtake all political ambitions.

I know it migth sound hars thing to say, but I recal that no US soldier has fougth to defend its nation on its own homeland in last few decades and that migth make some of you blind to the power of fighting spirit. I think that in case of Taiwan, the young men that are naturally more intressed about Playstations, rock and roll and women can put out hell of a figth when or if PLA tryes to invade. I know I would put on. I was same sort during my conscription, just dying to get it done.

__________________

Jon K

But if the attacking force has succeeded in invading, it's already a case half lost. Here's some of my amateurish suggestions:

-Scrap fighters except for small number of interceptors for showdowns. The mainland will have significantly larger number of modern fighters. The airfields are vulnerable. The true combat airfields would be swimming US ones.

-Invest in robust command structure based in multiple forms of communications, capable of surviving "decapitation" strike

-Air Defense built around SAM's capable of tackling both SSM's and traditional air threats. Whether or not some of the SAM's should be sea based is one question.

-Guided shells as primary weapon for coastal defense, they're more cost effective (when available) than SSM's, are capable of quicker reaction time and same artillery units can be used to support ground fighting too.

-A small surface fleet capable of defending SLOC's against asymmetrical threats. In long term Taiwan cannot build a navy which can punch through Chinese blockade, so better cut that capability out and settle for "coast guard".

-Submarines capable of invasion defense and counter-blockade duties

-Capable, mobile ground forces for immediate counter-offensive against any invasion. Static units are easy to destroy and relying on them gives initiative to the invader.

-Cruise missiles to be used against operational targets on mainland.

-Passive sensor network on Taiwan straits.

-Satellite recon capability for at least pre-conflict reconnaissance and targeting.

adeptitus

These were taken at the military parade last month in TW. Can someone explain the ski masks?

Attached Images

	image004.jpg (180.9 KB, 10 views)
	image012.jpg (69.2 KB, 8 views)

FuManChu

Then why have any? You can't manage with just a handful of interceptors - they'd be wiped out too fast for them to make a difference.

A key part of Taiwan's defence strategy is to have a deterrence so that China will think twice. It's a big mistake to just rely on the Americans, as China may attack anyway one day. Avoiding a war is as (if not more) important than ensuring you have a reasonable chance if one does start.

Also the airforce can provide very useful capabilities other than interception, such as attacks on enemy shipping. Taiwan has ordered 60 Block II Harpoons with 50 upgrade kits, which will give it a good punch against the PLAN.

Again, you're acting as if war is inevitable and cannot be avoided. A balanced fleet is necessary.

Of course lots of big ships isn't what's required. The 30 KH-6 missile boats being made, as well as the planned KH-5 corvettes, are a key part of Taiwan's future navy.

__________________
"Japan is as much of a threat to China, as China is to Japan."

--FuManChu

Jon K

A few interceptors (say, eight to twelve) are useful for showing the flag, for recognition of unknown aircraft etc. Additionally, even small number of fighters make the attacker attack airfields etc.

Yes, deterrence is the key for a defensive force but it may be asked why would large fighter force contribute for either deterrence or actual conduct of defence? Why would SAM based air defense system be of less deterrence?

As for actual conduct of defense, with range of modern weapons, such as tactical missiles, cruise missiles, ASM's and coastal artillery I'd say it's dubious whether operating fighters from vulnerable bases would be of any advantage.

And about the balanced fleet, what's it for? A Coast Guard style force would be useful for peaceful missions (SAR etc.) as well as escorting ships against asymmetrical threats (sponsered pirates, boardings etc). Say, Arleigh Burke does not have any advantages over a coast guard ship in those missions except it's much more costly. For deterrence, it's clear that Taiwanese Navy alone cannot deter PLAN, or guard the SLOC's against actual military threat (subs etc.). For actual defensive tasks in a war, all possible targets can be reached with land-based assets.

FuManChu

A small number like that would not make any difference. China would see it as a trivial defence and wipe them out, either in the air or on the ground even if they lost planes themselves.

Because it's more credible, as China would have to agree to suffer far more losses.

Where did I say Taiwan can't have any SAMs? Of course it should have them. But if you put all your eggs in one basket you're asking for trouble.

Have you actually researched the status of Taiwanese air bases yourself? No offence, but don't make assumptions if you're guessing.

Besides, it's quite possible to harden bases "vulnerable" bases.

For being able to manage with any particular form of attack.

And it would be useless in time of war.

I didn't mention the Arleigh Burke class once - I only mentioned the KH-5 and KH-6. Why did you bring it up?

Jon, you have this habit of ignoring what I've been saying. At no time have I suggested the ROCN could discourage the PLAN by itself. I've said over and over that balanced forces are the way to go. Please do not put words in my mouth.

It's foolish to ignore the maritime aspect. If Taiwan has an active navy with a range of assets that can engage the PLAN then it's not easy for China to stage an invasion without total air superiority. If, however, the only thing China has to fear are ground-based defences then it would risk the attack even if it didn't have total control of the skies.

__________________
"Japan is as much of a threat to China, as China is to Japan."

--FuManChu

Jon K

The question is whether to have SAM's or fighters, after all, or to be more exact, whether to base air defense on SAM's or fighters. ROC had GDP roughly similar to Sweden. From my, albeit very limited viewpoint, it seems that it's trying to operate a far too large military for it's economy with too large mission spread. And I have rough time seeing why a primarily SAM based air defense system would be less credible than one based in quite old fighter planes. SAM's can defeat (or try to defeat) both TBM's and air breathing threats, while interceptors can be used against air breathing threats only.

The same goes for the ROC Navy. It currently operates large number of frigate sized ships (26 it seems), but are the resources used on them wasted on long term as PRC maritime strike capabilties are bound to increase? Kidd's have a credible area air defense capability, so they're useful for as long as they're active, but I don't see point in maintaining Perry's, Knox's and Lafayette's.

By operating just "coast guard" style Navy the capabilities for asymmetric operations would be still there, but the resources used to maintain "balanced fleet" would be available for air defense, building up contingency stores etc.

Sorry, there seems to be misunderstanding. But if ROCN cannot defeat Chinese blockade and in the future, probably it's heavy units will have hard time operating in the straits, what's the point of having a balanced fleet? For offensive uses, subs are much better.

Umm, looking from the map the HF-III can close the Straits already, what else is there to do, really? Subs can also act as defensive element, as well as try to do counter-blockade against PRC.

On air superiority, what's it good for if against SAM's the attacker cannot operate her own aircraft? Eliminating SAM's takes a number of sorties too, and in case of ROC, I'd argue against limited number of ROCAF it would be easier for PLAAF to destroy them in an air superiority fight than eliminate IADS, which is really much more difficult operation.

Finn McCool

Personally I think that the ROC should put its money on weapons that will allow survive the initial onslaught and provide the capability to hit an invasion fleet afterwards.

By branch:

• ROCAF: It should maintain its F-16 fleet, but not replace it unless it is offered unaltered F-35s. As the F-16s phase out it should move towards a SAM based network for defence, with a small number of dual-use aircraft indigenously produced scattered on Swedish style small airfields, in hardened, camoflauged shelters. The main purpose of these aircraft would be to hit an invasion fleet with Harpoons and other weapons, with some acting as escorts. The ROCAF should also invest in passive sensors and at least one spy satillite to monitor the PRC side.
• ROCN: Again a gradual phase out would be good here, although many of the ROCN's ships can be done away with immediately. The ROCN then should move to acquire several diesel-electric subs and to produce large numbers of Hsuing-Feng armed FACs. They already have that project underway.
• ROCA: The ROCA should focus on creating a hi-lo mix. It would have some highly professional units centered on one heavy unit that would lead a counterattack against a newly established beachead. Augmenting the more professional army would be a National Guard-like corps of citizen soldiers trained in both more conventional infantry tactics and more assymetrical skills like IED use. The ROCA (if this is the ROCAs area of responsibility) should also have a large force of mobile truck-launched SSMs, capable of being disguised as civillian vehicles. Other procurements would be Javellin and Stinger missles.

All this may seem expensive but doing away with much of the ROCA's obsolete weaponry and conscripts could pay for it.

__________________
Battles are won by slaughter and maneuver. The greater the general, the more he contributes in maneuver, the less he demands in slaughter.
-Winston Churchill

SampanViking

What percentage of GDP is ROC pumping into defence these days? Whenever I read this thread there seems to be news of yet another multi Billion Dollar arms deal.

If they went ahead with all of them, they would surely be putting a higher proportion of earnings into defence than the DPRK!

__________________
For uncensored Chinese Politics and Current Affairs join us all at New Century China Forum -http://www.newcenturychina.org/forums