China can and will achieve total air superiority over Taiwan

I think the FT-1 is closer to the JDAM as a kit that converts old bombs, basically replacing the rear end of it. JDAM actually has different versions covering a variety of bomb weights.

The LS-6 is not directly comparable to the JDAM as it is more of a glide bomb like the the JSOW. But the JSOW is built from the top down as a brand new weapon, and not as a kit to convert old bombs, so again, not directly comparable but something that sits between a JDAM and a JSOW.

It looks to me that the LS-6 got ahead in certification, although both are competiting for the same contract. It hard to say if one or the other or both may be fielded. One is cheaper but has less range, the other more expensive but more range. The interview strikes me since it revealed that both designs are not from the same firm but different, competiting ones.

Actually, Operation Iraqi Freedom has shown that anti-jamming capability would be important for all PGMs in the future. USAF made it sounds so easy to counter the Russian-made GPS jammers in Iraq, and revealed the ironic fact that one of the six Iraqi jammer was destroyed by GPS weapon. But guess what? In 2003, USAF asked Boeing to develop anti-jamming devices for weapons such as JDAM, and asked how fast it could be done. Ultimately they did not have to rush anything new in service during wartime, but jamming capability is one of the technical "lesson-learned" that came out of OIF.

Improving accuracy is "relatively" easy, even if it may not be the most cost effective in the short run. You could use more expensive guidance devices to achieve the accuracy. By comparison, ECM and anti-jamming capability is difficult. If the technology is not there yet, spending more money now would not give you the capability now.

Taiwan's lack of strategic depth is an extremely serious operational drawback to say the very least. But here, this also indicates smaller cover area, for missile defense or jamming defense measures. A smaller number of strong jammers combine with large quantity of expendable jammers could be cost-effective.

Of course, nothing says it would be easy for ROCAF. One obvious problem is that PLA has multiple guidance sources, GPS / GLONASS now and in the future indigenous and EU satellites.

Production cost is certainly important, but so is ECM. I would not dismiss the jamming issue so easily against the cost equation. In fact anti-jamming capability will also affect the overall cost and cost effectiveness.

Indeed. If the effectiveness of jammers are effective enough to increase the CEP of the LS-6 or FT-1 beyond their effective area of destructive effect, then that would necessitate more bombs allocated to each target to ensure target destruction. The ROCAF may invest in a number of airborne jamming platforms targeting the GLONASS and Beidou system's operating frequency. (GPS and Galileo signals need not be targeted since they would probably not be available to China in the event of a cross strait conflict).

Problem is, ROCAF has not considered jamming of Beidou signals before, as they obviously underestimated (to say the very least and on a wide margin to boot) the PLA's growing homegrown technological capabiltiy. Even now, there may be sceptics and the common response is to arrogantly deny (deny such things exist in the PLAAF's arsenal).

Even if you do manage to jam the signals, the INS still takes over, so your CEP still manages to get 30 or 40m instead of 16m. That is far from enough to stop a 500kg bomb (over 1000lbs) from doing its damage.

That's why I say it's important to see what the accuracy of the INS alone can do. Of course this kind of data may be impossible to obtain. But this kind of data gauges the level of INS system technologies in China and the overall effectiveness of their missile systems in general.

I think one reason for pan-blue's opposition to the purchases might be that they're foreign purchases. That means in a war they'd have to rely on shipments from the U.S. That would be hell for them. Especially considering the only effective course of action would be to send shipments to the eastern coast and transport everything through the mountains to the western coast.

On the other hand, domestic weapons would be easier to replace.

Vlad Plasmius said:

I think one reason for pan-blue's opposition to the purchases might be that they're foreign purchases.

Click to expand...

Given that they bought US/foreign weapons like crazy when they were in power, I think that shows that particular theory can't apply here.

Generally they oppose arms purchases because:

a) they're not getting any kickbacks like they did in the 1990s.
b) they want to grandstage for the public about "stopping public money being wasted."
c) the last thing they want to do is let the government look like it's successfully increasing Taiwanese security.
d) they're still sore about losing the Presidency in 2000 and 2004.

If the KMT regains the Presidency in 2008, first thing they'll do is place orders for plenty of gear.

If the KMT regains the Presidency in 2008, first thing they'll do is place orders for plenty of gear.

Click to expand...

Which will prove a very handy horse trading asset to put on the table, when they start negotiating "normalisation" with the PRC

SampanViking said:

Which will prove a very handy horse trading asset to put on the table, when they start negotiating "normalisation" with the PRC

Click to expand...

Except that if that was ever a real possibility, the US would refuse to sell Taiwan anything. In which case Taiwan's military would be severely crippled. In which case Taiwan would have absolutely no negotiating power with China and have to accept anything and everything Beijing demanded - or there would be no deal at all.

The KMT aren't that stupid - they want unification with a lot of caveats. Believing they would put US technology on the table, when they need it to give themselves a defence capability, is complete pie-in-the-sky.

No you misunderstand me Fu.

I mean that the placing of the order is the bargaining chip, not the goods themselves. Yes that offering US Military secrets could upset a few people in Washington.

What I meant is that thry would have something to negotiate with and still be able to pocket a sweetener or two

SampanViking said:

I mean that the placing of the order is the bargaining chip, not the goods themselves.

Click to expand...

I think the Beijing leadership would be too proud for that - they'd see it as agreeing to blackmail. Also if Taiwan were using US goodwill over arms sales as a means of getting concessions out of China (i.e. that it wasn't serious about buying in the first place) then it would be another reason not to sell any more weapons. Which would again remove the baragining chip, as well as harming Taiwanese security.