Taiwan Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

[Brumby]

We can revisit that if you like. I'll even let you change your answers and show me why what you said was not just conjecture if you like.

I don't have to change anything. I have already provided my reasoning except so far your rebuttals are limited to asking for prove. I have already offered what is generally known. If you think they are wrong then offer your data. You can't have it both ways.

But you acknowledge "sure" that all of what you wrote were just assumptions and guesses, which was actually in post 3010 itself that said it was your speculation of the unknown. Then you said that I'm assuming that a PL-15 works, so I said it's pretty absurd to think that an in-service missile doesn't work, and work better than all its predecessors. For the third time, the US intelligence community believes that it takes a missile beyond what can be done to the AIM-120 base to compete with the PL-15.

Firstly you can't shoot at what you can't track. Provide me with a reference that the radar on either the J-11. J-16 or J-10B/C can engage a 1 m2 target from 200 km.
Secondly advertised range is still subject to actual performance. The Russians are a good example of not meeting their claims. A recent example.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

escaped being shot down but were unable to retaliate the F-16s because they were out of position and their own missiles, the Russian R-77s, did not have the range to realistically engage the Pakistani fighters.
IAF sources told NDTV that the Russian missiles do not match its advertised range and cannot engage targets which are more than 80 kilometres away.

In that same article, the AIM-120C-5 delivered in range as advertised. With the Chinese it is still an unknown.

Thirdly, the Chinese claim on the PL-15 is based on a bunch of unknowns i.e. altitude, target type and kinematic launch vehicle and speed. In other words ideal conditions and contested environment can produce very significant differences.

First of all, you interpreted that wrong again. These are not different scenarios of how things can unfold after a PLA attack; those different scenarios represent what's likely to happen if the PRC initiates hostilities in different ways.

Please explain how different ways is not equal to different scenarios.

If the PLA decides to use slow pressure by PLAAF, the ROCAF is likely to sustain 2-4 weeks. I don't the PRC going this route at all and really neither does RAND; it was just to compare air-forces for comparison sake. If the PLA decides to initiate with missile bombardment, the following, from post 3067 occurs:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

"China's procurement and development of fighter aircraft, surface-to-surface ballistic missiles, land-attack cruise missiles and bomber aircraft advancements are not slowing, and could pulverize Taiwan's air bases within hours of a war, the report says. None of Taiwan's fighter aircraft would survive or be deployable on runways turned into a lunar landscape."

Within hours is still day 1, right? I think so. Bold part's important too. Do you really want to continue this? LOL

Did I miss the part with those hidden in the mountains?

 

[TerraN_EmpirE]

Hold on, I opened the link you provided for where you got your 12,000 feet figure. The article by Michael Cole says that the 12,000 feet minimum altitude for detection figure was obtained from a RAND eBook called "Shaking the Heavens and Splitting the Earth" which it cited. I previously thought it was for sale but now see it's free. I downloaded it and did a ctrl+f for "12,000 ft," and "12,000 feet." I found nothing. I did "12,000" and I found that there was only 1 in the document and it was talking about 12,000 mines in 1945. A search for "twelve thousand" came up with nothing. This got more curious so I searched for "S400" "SAM400" and "SAM 400" and all came up blank. I looked for "sea level" and it appeared twice, both in a discussion about AWACs and not about SAM. So in other words, the source is not verifying the claim. It looks like the 12,000 feet figure was adopted by Michael Cole in error because the study he cited does not say what he said it says... at all.

Oh for goodness sake dude!!

The Radar type we are talking about cannot penetrate the ground or Ocean. So Over the Horizon line of sight of 135 miles is 12,000 feet on the earth. Which is conveniently laid out in my other link the one you deemed as a waste of time.

 

[Gloire_bb]

the M1A2 comes in at 70 tons with all the bells and whistles. That limits where it can go ( driving a 70+ ton tank cross country near irrigation ditches is a very bad idea)

A M60 with an unmanned turrets will probably be 50 tons.

M60 with unmanned turret and upgraded mobility will be a new tank, with costs of a new tank, but still with an old hull. Furthermore, placing cockerill/striker turret won't make an Armata out of it.

There are much more reasonable options with Taiwanese current fleet of m60s, and they already pursue them. As i told before, they are not in Turkish situation, where pooring much more money into already expensive M60T fleet is simply the best path availible.(yes, better than their leopards)

70+t is weight for city fighting/COIN setup. In cities, this weight won't be a problem.Otherwise, Abrams isn't as heavy. Both will be limited, and i honestly think what Patton will be limited much more severely.

 

[manqiangrexue]

Highways, not just airports.
For most US fighters it requires some additional headaches, but it is a completely normal and routine practice.

ROC jets aren't stationed on highways. When their runways are blown, they can't even get out onto them. There are no aircraft logistics support on the highway. The PRC would use ballistic missiles to hit the runways and follow with ground attack to take out the jets in short order.

Earth is curved, as it is uneven(main Taiwanese bases are on the eastern coast, behind the mountains); furthermore, in case of such a shooting fest, the strait and Taiwan proper will be an extremely dense ECM environment with the most powerful countermeasures possible often placed in their most effective point: inbetween emitter and receiver/target.

Extreme ECM for what? A runway on the ground? The missile's not chasing a moving target; it doesn't need mid-course update. Once it has its coordinates, it goes there. There's no reason to believe that a missile going towards a stationary target can be jammed and made to miss.

Furthermore, it is often forgotten, but this is a game of two: long range Taiwanese SAMs cover portions of the mainland just as well.(as do their SRBMs, btw).

By no means this is a healthy situation(especially with the arrival of 40n6-armed s-400). But they have little choice there.

I am vaguely aware of these; what is there performance and how many are there? They can inflict damage; China's not going to give this fight up for damage but they too will be overwhelmed by greater number.

Taiwan isn't a gulf monarchy. Tribute alone won't save them(or they would had been pacified looong ago). Because, well, even if US will reacts asap, they have to survive long enough. It is by no means assured what everything will be thrown immediately to save them.

Furthermore, air dominance isn't their only role.

What things in life are guaranteed? But they think it's the best they can do. It doesn't imply they have a better plan.

Please take a second look.
ROC is actually one of the densest air defence bubbles in the world.
Furthermore, there is a limit to how much of its missile stock PRC can devote to Taiwan operation. Taiwan, as a rebellous province, is for sure the most itchy, but it isn't the only unfriendly country around China.
Others need to be kept in check just as well.

I am by no means saying that the PRC would exhaust its missiles on the ROC. There are stockpiles dedicated for that but much more to defend China's western borders, Korea contingent, etc... Especially because interceptors tend to have a very low rate of success, you're definitely not showing me anything that says that the ROC air defenses can save them against a saturation attack.

 

[TerraN_EmpirE]

the M1A2 comes in at 70 tons with all the bells and whistles. That limits where it can go ( driving a 70+ ton tank cross country near irrigation ditches is a very bad idea)

A M60 with an unmanned turrets will probably be 50 tons.

There is no such thing in existence. With the sole exception of a concept tank from Jordan that never entered production.

Taiwan has 400+ M60A3TT. They also have about 400 M48 Tanks. The M60 can be upgraded. M48 cannot.
They also have a fair 8x8 APC/IFV vehicle

 

[Gloire_bb]

ROC jets aren't stationed on highways. When their runways are blown, they can't even get out onto them. There are no aircraft logistics support on the highway. The PRC would use ballistic missiles to hit the runways and follow with ground attack to take out the jets in short order.

Wars don't start out of blue.
And yes, Taiwan has exactly this kind of aircraft logistic preparations made. It is no secret, they show it off every so often.

I am vaguely aware of these; what is there performance and how many are there? They can inflict damage; China's not going to give this fight up for damage but they too will be overwhelmed by greater number.

Check 天弓二， 天弓三
I don't have numbers at hand, Taiwan isn't mmy speciality, but iirc quite a few.
Both are modern 三 is ABM capable.

What things in life are guaranteed? But they think it's the best they can do. It doesn't imply they have a better plan.

Yes, this is it.
It is interesting, though, what Taiwanese stance is shifting, becoming increasingly defensive. Fighters don't contradict it.

 

[manqiangrexue]

I don't have to change anything. I have already provided my reasoning except so far your rebuttals are limited to asking for prove. I have already offered what is generally known. If you think they are wrong then offer your data. You can't have it both ways.

Yeah, my rebuttals are asking that you say things in the realm of the known, not of the imaginary, and it's not my prerogative to provide evidence for why imaginary claims are false; the claimant must prove that they are true. There's no 2 ways about this; you make a claim, you cite your sources. You don't make a claim and ask others to prove it false or assume it true.

Firstly you can't shoot at what you can't track. Provide me with a reference that the radar on either the J-11. J-16 or J-10B/C can engage a 1 m2 target from 200 km. Secondly advertised range is still subject to actual performance. The Russians are a good example of not meeting their claims. A recent example.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

In that same article, the AIM-120C-5 delivered in range as advertised. With the Chinese it is still an unknown.

What 1m^2 target? What's an F-16V's RCS when it's strapped with missiles? We can start there, provide your source for an actual RCS and we can work from there.

PS. AWACs are fair to use too.

Please explain how different ways is not equal to different scenarios.

You clearly didn't read the studies. It's not saying, "When PRC comes with a missile saturation strike, either they might cripple ROC's airport OR the ROCAF might be able to last 2-4 weeks." It's saying, "If the PRC comes with a missile saturation strike, ROCAF is grounded in hours, airports cratered, aircraft destroyed. But if the PRC comes in with little airplane games to tease air space with small encounters, the ROCAF might last 2-4 weeks." And by the way, these are 2 articles, both RAND.

Did I miss the part with those hidden in the mountains?

That's all you have to say after you asked me to provide you with where it says the ROCAF would be dead on Day 1 and I provided exactly what you wanted? LOL OK sure. What's hidden in the mountains? Not airports. If there is an exposed runway for aircraft to operate from, that's not considered hidden from any missiles.

Thirdly, the Chinese claim on the PL-15 is based on a bunch of unknowns i.e. altitude, target type and kinematic launch vehicle and speed. In other words ideal conditions and contested environment can produce very significant differences.

It's actually not a Chinese claim that I referenced; it is an American intelligence claim that the AIM-120 design can no longer compete with advanced missiles like PL-15. But you are right; there are lots of unknowns about it so I said it "likely" give an advantage to the PLAAF because it seems that everyone with knowledge on it believes it will be provide the PLAAF an advantage over the AIM-120X but we don't have the numbers on it. So... likely.

 

[Gloire_bb]

Taiwan has 400+ M60A3TT. They also have about 400 M48 Tanks. The M60 can be upgraded. M48 cannot.

//offtop// not m-48s, CM-11s. Interesting sort-of "coast defense frankentank" design.

 

[TerraN_EmpirE]

Built off M48 hulls.

 

[Gloire_bb]

Built off M48 hulls.

M60 hull
M48 turret
M68 gun
M1A1-derived fcs
ERA
=
Frankentank

Extreme ECM for what? A runway on the ground? The missile's not chasing a moving target; it doesn't need mid-course update. Once it has its coordinates, it goes there. There's no reason to believe that a missile going towards a stationary target can be jammed and made to miss.

For SAMs/AAMs, datalinks, communications, all sorts of radars at cetera.
Ballistic missiles won't be overly affected, but LACMs will.