Taiwan Military News, Reports, Data, etc.


Viktor Jav

Senior Member
Registered Member
Whatever spare parts in that $2 billion contract probably isn't going to cover anything past ten years of operations (and the ROCA needs to buy at least a similar amount of spare parts for future Abrams purchases if the ROCA doesn't want to use them as pillboxes).
Again we do not know how many spare parts will be purchased in the deal, and how the ROCA use them will determine their durability. Anything else is pure speculation at this point.
And even then 10 years is still a significant portion of time in which extra purchases of spare parts or the like is not out of the question.

Economies of scale. That's why the Japanese Type 99 SPH costs much more than the M109A5.
There is the matter to be remember that the Type 99 spg is a much more capable SPH then the A5, and that the A5's price is from the 1980s. Manufacturing domestic ammuntion can allow Taiwan to cut out the extra price that foreign sellers would demand as a profit.

Oh boy, where to start? There's the next generation DDG program for the ROCN, for starters. The hulls for the SSKs are larger than optimal for Taiwan Straits operations.
Their DDG is still in development, so there is much to be left to speculation and final approval. As for the claim that their SSK's would be to big for the Taiwan Straits, that is a faux claim. Submarines of bigger size are expected to operate just fine. If a yuan class submarine of a 3,600 ton weight can be operate in the straits, then the projected sub of 2,500 tons can just as well.
On the other hand, the various systems that they did actually produce more or less functions just fine. Like their missile boats, the TC series to name a few.

Actually, it's pretty unreasonable to expect the F-16 to carry Sky Sword missiles. To do that without Uncle Sam's say would require jailbreaking the F-16's avionics (and in doing so, would incur American wrath)


Spoiler: They don't.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
That depends on the host nation in question, if it is a nation of the likes of Pakistan. Then the reaction is pretty obvious. If Israel can get it's F-16s to fire domestic Python missiles without the US kicking up a fuzz. Then there is no reason that Taiwan can't.

US military grade comm and network systems have been going over budget (like everyone else) Why would Taipei be exempt?
Less lobbying ,less pork-barreling, more government oversight. The list goes on, this forum likes to jeer how supposedly inefficient the US procurement system is compared to that of China. If Taiwan is paying any attention it will most likely take steps to avoid it.

Here's the gist of the deal for trade off between wheeled vs. tracked vehicles: the former is faster and usually less maintenance intensive, but the latter provides better cross country capability. So the tracked vehicles will slow down the wheeled formation, but there's no point in having the tracked vehicles around if the wheeled vehicles can't take advantage of the former's superior mobility.

M113s not a burden? Try telling that to the maintenance crew for the CM-32 battalion saddled with the M113 mortar carriers. Wehrmacht panzer divisions in early WWII went crazy trying to keep up with the logistics for multiple tank types (of differing nationalities to boot).
Actually, in early WW2. Wermacht panzer divisions were rather streamlined, the majority being Pz 1 and 2s that reuses much similar parts. They do accquire foreign equipment from defeated nations to bolster their strength. But they only produce the bare minimum of ammunition for them to function. Once they are knocked out and/or broke down, they did not bother to put them back into service.

And I know the pro and cons of tracked vs wheeled so spare me that. But I also know that Taiwan is much much smaller then Germany, and that they aren't actively fighting a war as of now. So they can take the time to gradually phase certain vehicles out of service over the years.
Given their land mass, the chances are far greater than any potential conflict will be over before the issue of logistics pop up.

Actually, spending more money automatically equates to better results if that extra money is used for purposes like R&D, to develop and buy things like hypersonic missiles, very long range artillery, autonomous UCAS swarms, amphibious mineclearing robots, smart grenade launchers, things that the country spending less money can't hope to match in quality or quantity.
Actually no, if the R&D is plagued by corruption, inefficient management and that of the like. That extra money is not going to make any difference.
 
Last edited:

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
There is the matter to be remember that the Type 99 spg is a much more capable SPH then the A5, and that the A5's price is from the 1980s. Manufacturing domestic ammuntion can allow Taiwan to cut out the extra price that foreign sellers would demand as a profit.
Yes and No. the problem is overhead. When you have a export going on, the factory is already built, tooled up, workers trained, Logistical train of sub assemblies and parts worked out. Those first buyers IE the Home army graciously paid for it all the importing army has as such a cheaper sticker price.
The money made off the same then is the profit.
When you set to build just for you and no more all that overhead is on you. That means the building, machining, workers, training, all the sub components have to be paid for and then you have the R&D. The way this is normally covered is by spreading the cost out though the buys. Hence why early machines cost more than later generations. Because we are talking about defense products each buy is blocked out but has a maximum potential number. This is why typically even a small system like a Rifle costs more to the JSDF. Because where if your nation buys off the line it’s the product and support system and a smaller portion to profit when you go to pure indigenous builds it’s all on the table with a shocking sticker price.
 

Skywatcher

Senior Member
Again we do not know how many spare parts will be purchased in the deal, and how the ROCA use them will determine their durability. Anything else is pure speculation at this point.
And even then 10 years is still a significant portion of time in which extra purchases of spare parts or the like is not out of the question.
So to sum things up, the ROCA will have to spend a huge chunk of money to maintain its Abrams fleet?

There is the matter to be remember that the Type 99 spg is a much more capable SPH then the A5, and that the A5's price is from the 1980s. Manufacturing domestic ammuntion can allow Taiwan to cut out the extra price that foreign sellers would demand as a profit.
See Terran Empire's reply, he explained much better than I could.

Their DDG is still in development, so there is much to be left to speculation and final approval. As for the claim that their SSK's would be to big for the Taiwan Straits, that is a faux claim. Submarines of bigger size are expected to operate just fine. If a yuan class submarine of a 3,600 ton weight can be operate in the straits, then the projected sub of 2,500 tons can just as well.
On the other hand, the various systems that they did actually produce more or less functions just fine. Like their missile boats, the TC series to name a few.
We have a few details already, especially from looking at official pictures (which have remained pretty consistent over the past five years). They're about 8,000-9,000 tons, have 48 VLS, four phased array radars. Spending $2+ billion (including R&D) per hull on 4 ships that will get sunk in the opening hours of war (or spend the next several weeks skulking in the Philippine Seas is a pretty bad use of the taxpayer dollar, no?

Those SSKs are essentially littoral assets since they'll be operating in the Straits (unless some schmuck gets the delusional idea of sending them on a one way mission to Shanghai or Guangzhou in age of modern ASW). In that case, you want to make SSKs smaller (for cost reasons and also, smaller SSKs are generally stealthier).

That depends on the host nation in question, if it is a nation of the likes of Pakistan. Then the reaction is pretty obvious. If Israel can get it's F-16s to fire domestic Python missiles without the US kicking up a fuzz. Then there is no reason that Taiwan can't.
CI concerns for starters. It's also a whole different game to integrate on a new radar guided BVRAAM, as opposed to a IR guided AA (otherwise every F-16 operating NATO member with an armaments industry worthy of the name would have installed their own homebrew BVRAAM).

Less lobbying ,less pork-barreling, more government oversight. The list goes on, this forum likes to jeer how supposedly inefficient the US procurement system is compared to that of China. If Taiwan is paying any attention it will most likely take steps to avoid it.
And what proof do you have for less lobbying, less pork barreling in Taipei?

Actually, in early WW2. Wermacht panzer divisions were rather streamlined, the majority being Pz 1 and 2s that reuses much similar parts. They do accquire foreign equipment from defeated nations to bolster their strength. But they only produce the bare minimum of ammunition for them to function. Once they are knocked out and/or broke down, they did not bother to put them back into service.
No they weren't.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


And I know the pro and cons of tracked vs wheeled so spare me that. But I also know that Taiwan is much much smaller then Germany, and that they aren't actively fighting a war as of now. So they can take the time to gradually phase certain vehicles out of service over the years.
Given their land mass, the chances are far greater than any potential conflict will be over before the issue of logistics pop up.
So you concede that mixing tracked platforms into a wheeled vehicle formation is a bad idea, then?

Actually no, if the R&D is plagued by corruption, inefficient management and that of the like. That extra money is not going to make any difference.
That assumes: Taipei is somehow magically not plagued by corruption (see the minesweeper saga), inefficient management (white elephants)

More ridiculously, if "that extra money is not going to make any difference", then it stands to reason that the PLA modernization of the last twenty years would be fake news.
 

Viktor Jav

Senior Member
Registered Member
So to sum things up, the ROCA will have to spend a huge chunk of money to maintain its Abrams fleet?
They will spend the necessary amount, but no evidence to support that they will spend significantly more than what is considered the norm.

See Terran Empire's reply, he explained much better than I could.
He also caution that is not necessarily a net loss for the producer. Since Taiwan already have existing arm's industry, the costs of manufacturing will be considerably less then starting from scratch.

We have a few details already, especially from looking at official pictures (which have remained pretty consistent over the past five years). They're about 8,000-9,000 tons, have 48 VLS, four phased array radars. Spending $2+ billion (including R&D) per hull on 4 ships that will get sunk in the opening hours of war (or spend the next several weeks skulking in the Philippine Seas is a pretty bad use of the taxpayer dollar, no?
Not necessarily, if these ships perform on the level that their claimed specs allows them to be in conjunction with existing armed forces will significant increase their capability and survivlebility, not everything exist in a vacuum you know. But that is getting into the are of tactics and deployment strategy which have nothing to do with procurement feasibility.

Those SSKs are essentially littoral assets since they'll be operating in the Straits (unless some schmuck gets the delusional idea of sending them on a one way mission to Shanghai or Guangzhou in age of modern ASW). In that case, you want to make SSKs smaller (for cost reasons and also, smaller SSKs are generally stealthier).
There will come to a point whereby a sub can only be so small until it adversely effects it's capability in regards to endurance, speed and sensor equipment, stealth is not the end all be all factor in sub design. Building midget subs is only a viable solution if the host nation has no other alternatives and/or the entire conflict is expected to take place 10 miles off the coast line. A 2,000 ton sub is the perfect balance for Taiwan's geography. I don't see China rushing to build midgets subs anytime soon.

CI concerns for starters. It's also a whole different game to integrate on a new radar guided BVRAAM, as opposed to a IR guided AA (otherwise every F-16 operating NATO member with an armaments industry worthy of the name would have installed their own homebrew BVRAAM).
Some already do, the Derby missile used by the IAF is already considered a BVRAM missile. And technology wise, intergrating IR missiles to a fighter jet systems is just as significant as integrating a BVRAAM. So long as it interacts with the plane's software system.


And what proof do you have for less lobbying, less pork barreling in Taipei?
From the fact that for starters, most of Taiwan's defense industry are nationalized as opposed to US's privatization. And that they do not advertise their projects as being critical to economic growth which is a key aspect of pork barreling.

No they weren't.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
You forgot to highlight the fact the Panzer 38t was a Cezch tank, which is not subjected to German logistic trains with production ending in 1942 when Germany streamline into the Pz4, the chasis was however used for other purposes. And that the Souma S35 was used only in small numbers most for interior security work and training, whereby maintenance is less of a hassle.
A more accurate example would be the B1 which are used on several fronts, but where readily discarded when too badly damaged.


So you concede that mixing tracked platforms into a wheeled vehicle formation is a bad idea, then?
I will state that Taiwan's unique geography and political situation makes that issue a trivial one at best, and a red herring bashing point at worse. Taiwan is not the size of Russia, or that they are rushing headlong into a war. They will eventually get more wheeled vehicles, but not at the expense of sustainability, their tracked vehicles can do the job just as well and they are not spoiling for spare parts or maintenance for the moment, so why the myopic focus to replace them ? Just as China did not jump to replace every single fighter, tank, or missile when a better one pops up, Taiwan is under no obligation to do the same.

That assumes: Taipei is somehow magically not plagued by corruption (see the minesweeper saga), inefficient management (white elephants)
Judging by the number of projects which are actually put into production and are deemed successful, the white elephant woe is not as great as one might think.
Corruption wise, given government control over the defense industry and the extremely plucky free press that is eager to publish any scandalous military news. It would not constitute as great issue.
More ridiculously, if "that extra money is not going to make any difference", then it stands to reason that the PLA modernization of the last twenty years would be fake news.
Why not, this forum likes to crow about how inefficient US procurement is when compared to China and that how China gets more with less because their defense industry is not subjected to the same privatization and lobbying in Washington. So why should it be the opposite in this scenario ?
 
Last edited:

Skywatcher

Senior Member
They will spend the necessary amount, but no evidence to support that they will spend significantly more than what is considered the norm.
They will certainly spend a lot more on O&M costs for a fleet of M1 Abrams compared to a similarly sized fleet of M60s.

He also caution that is not necessarily a net loss for the producer. Since Taiwan already have existing arm's industry, the costs of manufacturing will be considerably less then starting from scratch.
Their arms industry doesn't produce anything related to Abrams support equipment, apart from possibly heavy movers (and even then, they'll have to significantly upsize any heavy movers to accommodate the M1.

Not necessarily, if these ships perform on the level that their claimed specs allows them to be in conjunction with existing armed forces will significant increase their capability and survivlebility, not everything exist in a vacuum you know. But that is getting into the are of tactics and deployment strategy which have nothing to do with procurement feasibility.
Even if those ships perform according to claimed specs, how long will a 8,000 ton DDG with only 48 VLS to last against a swarm of anti-ship missiles, anti-ship ballistic missiles (or even long range artillery rockets), or even a railgun?

There will come to a point whereby a sub can only be so small until it adversely effects it's capability in regards to endurance, speed and sensor equipment, stealth is not the end all be all factor in sub design. Building midget subs is only a viable solution if the host nation has no other alternatives and/or the entire conflict is expected to take place 10 miles off the coast line. A 2,000 ton sub is the perfect balance for Taiwan's geography. I don't see China rushing to build midgets subs anytime soon.
Well gee, there are SSKs which aren't 2,500-3,000 tons. I believe that some of those are the Type 214, 212 and 209. Or the Agosta and Scorpene.

Some already do, the Derby missile used by the IAF is already considered a BVRAM missile. And technology wise, intergrating IR missiles to a fighter jet systems is just as significant as integrating a BVRAAM. So long as it interacts with the plane's software system.
A radar guided BVRAAM requires more significant integration into aircraft systems. And again, what about the CI concerns?

From the fact that for starters, most of Taiwan's defense industry are nationalized as opposed to US's privatization. And that they do not advertise their projects as being critical to economic growth which is a key aspect of pork barreling.
No pork barreling in Taipei's defense spending?

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

You forgot to highlight the fact the Panzer 38t was a Cezch tank, which is not subjected to German logistic trains with production ending in 1942 when Germany streamline into the Pz4, the chasis was however used for other purposes. And that the Souma S35 was used only in small numbers most for interior security work and training, whereby maintenance is less of a hassle.
A more accurate example would be the B1 which are used on several fronts, but where readily discarded when too badly damaged.
Irrelevant. The Wehrmacht still had to juggle maintainance for the 38t, the S35 and the B1 (not to mention four different kinds of Panzers) during combat operations.


I will state that Taiwan's unique geography and political situation makes that issue a trivial one at best, and a red herring bashing point at worse. Taiwan is not the size of Russia, or that they are rushing headlong into a war. They will eventually get more wheeled vehicles, but not at the expense of sustainability, their tracked vehicles can do the job just as well and they are not spoiling for spare parts or maintenance for the moment, so why the myopic focus to replace them ? Just as China did not jump to replace every single fighter, tank, or missile when a better one pops up, Taiwan is under no obligation to do the same.
Since the ROCA is undergoing professionalization, they have a very urgent need to get light mechanized forces proficient in combined arms operations (it takes a long time to build that sort of institutional knowledge and capacity). Not providing an indirect fire support capability will significantly nerf said light mechanized forces.

Judging by the number of projects which are actually put into production and are deemed successful, the white elephant woe is not as great as one might think.
And which projects have been deemed successful, versus those that have not delivered optimal outcomes in their initial schedules.

Corruption wise, given government control over the defense industry and the extremely plucky free press that is eager to publish any scandalous military news. It would not constitute as great issue.
By that logic, if we substitute "CCP disciplinary activities" for the "extremely plucky free press", then the Mainland should have no problem with its military procurement.

Why not, this forum likes to crow about how inefficient US procurement is when compared to China and that how China gets more with less because their defense industry is not subjected to the same privatization and lobbying in Washington. So why should it be the opposite in this scenario ?
Since you seem to be very confused on the subject, I'll kindly make it clear for you, in the interests of your general enlightenment, that I do not go on crowing about "inefficient US procurement is when compared to China and that how China gets more with less because their defense industry is not subjected to the same privatization and lobbying in Washington". I am but one of many posters on SDF. Undoubtedly, there are likely other SDF posters who have expressed that sentiment. Is that clear enough for you?

It is incumbent upon you to demonstrate that "if the R&D is plagued by corruption, inefficient management and that of the like. That extra money is not going to make any difference"
 

Gloire_bb

Junior Member
Registered Member
There's the next generation DDG program for the ROCN, for starters
These aren't necessary white elephants. It depends.
While Taiwan has one main problem, it isn't their only one.

Designing submarines specifically for a strait of this size is kinda lame. There won't be much sailing through it during any conflict anyways.
 

supersnoop

Junior Member
Registered Member
My friend sent me this
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

This is the annual Han Kuang PRC-defense drill.
1 Kiowa Warrior crash killing both crew
1 zodiac flipped killing 2 marines (probably will be 3)
1 suicide by a senior officer

Apparently this exercise has a very checkered past, but this is a particularly bad year. Does this speak to a very ill level of training (still using conscripts)? Has the armed forces funding continued to be cut?
 

Top