Taiwan Military News, Reports, Data, etc.


Mr T

Senior Member
If they are increasing the Defense budget, then where is the money going?
Err, increasing a budget doesn't mean there's unlimited resources for a whole department. There's lots of things to spend money on - the new F-16s, the submarine project, etc. I'm just pointing out that there haven't been cuts.

2nd Helicopter crash this year, 1st killed the military Chief of Staff. If that is not ringing alarm bells with regards to maintenance staff quality, then there is no point in maintenance at all.
Given that the personnel charged were working at a weather centre, that suggests in the Black Hawk crash maintenace was not a factor (or only part of it).

The suicide is not speculated to be coincidental because this officer was one of the ones in charge of that portion of the exercise, and his suicide came within hours of the confirmation of the first death.
I wasn't aware of that point. However, that doesn't really change much. The officer could have been mentally unstable and then killed themselves because of the earlier death. Indeed I would be surprised if a totally mentally healthy person committed suicide just for that reason.

All volunteer army has been a failure (not the current administration's fault necessarily) from what I've read. The pay is competitive with Taiwanese salaries, but Taiwanese salaries are amongst the lowest in Asia.
I wouldn't say it's a failure. I think last year they were hitting 80-90% of their recruitment targets, which isn't bad. But I would agree that the reserves could do with more training time, or changing so that they have a more highly-skilled section and one that deals with simpler stuff like guard-duty.
 

supersnoop

Junior Member
Registered Member
Err, increasing a budget doesn't mean there's unlimited resources for a whole department. There's lots of things to spend money on - the new F-16s, the submarine project, etc. I'm just pointing out that there haven't been cuts.

Given that the personnel charged were working at a weather centre, that suggests in the Black Hawk crash maintenace was not a factor (or only part of it).
You are totally missing the point. Of course resources are finite.
Simply put, if you cannot afford to equip every plane with a missile, why are you buying more planes?
They are spending money on a submarine project, which looks good on paper, but realistically has no chance in succeeding.
Maybe, instead of splurging on new Abrams tanks, they should concentrate on the basics of soldiers' skills.
If they can't even report the weather properly and cost the life of 8 senior officers, including the most senior officer, how is that not an issue?

Honestly, you can even forget what I am saying on quality of personnel, it doesn't even matter. Did you know that ROC doesn't even have enough front line soldiers? You mention PAC-3, P3, Apache, all great things on paper. Unfortunately, there is no one to operate them. So what kind of solution is buying Abrams and Submarines?

I wasn't aware of that point. However, that doesn't really change much. The officer could have been mentally unstable and then killed themselves because of the earlier death. Indeed I would be surprised if a totally mentally healthy person committed suicide just for that reason.

I wouldn't say it's a failure. I think last year they were hitting 80-90% of their recruitment targets, which isn't bad. But I would agree that the reserves could do with more training time, or changing so that they have a more highly-skilled section and one that deals with simpler stuff like guard-duty.
The senior officer is mentally unstable? The military is promoting the mentally unstable to senior posts responsible for important training exercises? Are you trying to prove my point that the ROC military is in need of total reform?

That 80-90% number is a lie. They are basing their targets on percentage of active service members including those basically non-effective reservists. Since most of those reservists are useless anyhow, they just cut them as needed to meet the target.

Increasing training time is a false panacea. I don't want to speak ill of the dead, but based on the known details, it seems that these soldiers died because their swimming skills were lacking (I think it was 12 or 14 people on the boat, half were able to swim to safety, 3 or so were able to stay afloat to be rescued, and the 4 drowned. Out of the 4, 2 confirmed dead, 1 brain dead, 1 will recover.

How is it possible that marines cannot swim? You can shift the less qualified to alternate duties, I met someone from Israel who "served" in an IDF library. However, you cannot make create so many useless positions in the military.

Some words I heard from a Warrant Officer (veteran of Bosnia) in a classroom. "...do not forget, our jobs as soldiers is to fight, fight in wars. We have to take this job seriously and so we have to train seriously."

The politicians and senior leadership are only acting out security theatre, and these people died for it. No PLA necessary.
 

Mr T

Senior Member
Simply put, if you cannot afford to equip every plane with a missile, why are you buying more planes?
First, as I said, I replied to a comment about "cuts". I pointed out there had been no cuts (not recently, anyway).

Second, to answer your point, it will take years for the planes to be built and received, whereas the missiles can be ordered and delivered much sooner.

They are spending money on a submarine project, which looks good on paper, but realistically has no chance in succeeding.
I don't see why it has "no" chance of succeeding. I think that it has a decent chance of succeeding. If you mean it's likely to be late and/or over-budget, that's quite possible, but I think it will eventually deliver.

Maybe, instead of splurging on new Abrams tanks, they should concentrate on the basics of soldiers' skills.
Well lots of members of the forum have been disparaging of ROC tanks in the past so I'm not sure it's "splurging". At some point the old tanks need to be replaced.

If they can't even report the weather properly and cost the life of 8 senior officers, including the most senior officer, how is that not an issue?
It's an issue, but it's not related to maintenance. Crashes happen all around the world due to human error. The Smolensk air crash is a good example.

You mention PAC-3, P3, Apache, all great things on paper. Unfortunately, there is no one to operate them. So what kind of solution is buying Abrams and Submarines?
I'm not going to pretend I know about the manning levels of Taiwan's air defences, but I'm sure I've read they've been conducting maritime patrols fairly regularly with the Orions.

The senior officer is mentally unstable? The military is promoting the mentally unstable to senior posts responsible for important training exercises? Are you trying to prove my point that the ROC military is in need of total reform?
I'm not sure you understand how mental illness works. It affects huge numbers of people globally, even people you would think are totally fine. It's not like you can do a blood test for it. If just one senior officer in the ROC military was mentally unstable that would be incredible.

That 80-90% number is a lie.
So what are the real numbers, and what sources do you have to support them?

I don't want to speak ill of the dead, but based on the known details, it seems that these soldiers died because their swimming skills were lacking
Depends on the distance they had to swim, water temperature, how rough the sea was, currents, whether they were in full combat gear, etc. "Strong" swimmers can drown, not least because they tend to train in safe environments where they're not encumbered.

How is it possible that marines cannot swim?
See above. You don't know that they couldn't swim, you're making assumptions - and to be fair you appear to have a low opinion of the ROC military, so I'm not sure how objective you are on this particular issue.
 

supersnoop

Junior Member
Registered Member
First, as I said, I replied to a comment about "cuts". I pointed out there had been no cuts (not recently, anyway).

Second, to answer your point, it will take years for the planes to be built and received, whereas the missiles can be ordered and delivered much sooner.



I don't see why it has "no" chance of succeeding. I think that it has a decent chance of succeeding. If you mean it's likely to be late and/or over-budget, that's quite possible, but I think it will eventually deliver.



Well lots of members of the forum have been disparaging of ROC tanks in the past so I'm not sure it's "splurging". At some point the old tanks need to be replaced.



It's an issue, but it's not related to maintenance. Crashes happen all around the world due to human error. The Smolensk air crash is a good example.



I'm not going to pretend I know about the manning levels of Taiwan's air defences, but I'm sure I've read they've been conducting maritime patrols fairly regularly with the Orions.



I'm not sure you understand how mental illness works. It affects huge numbers of people globally, even people you would think are totally fine. It's not like you can do a blood test for it. If just one senior officer in the ROC military was mentally unstable that would be incredible.



So what are the real numbers, and what sources do you have to support them?



Depends on the distance they had to swim, water temperature, how rough the sea was, currents, whether they were in full combat gear, etc. "Strong" swimmers can drown, not least because they tend to train in safe environments where they're not encumbered.



See above. You don't know that they couldn't swim, you're making assumptions - and to be fair you appear to have a low opinion of the ROC military, so I'm not sure how objective you are on this particular issue.
This is incredible. You should apply for ROC Ministry of Information.
"Everything is fine and good! Please carry on!"
You are really going to argue these obvious shortcomings?

I already pointed out that they have 150 F-16A Today. Now, not years from now. They have 200 AMRAAM now, not years from now.
Do the math.

The members of this forum can say whatever they like. It's irrelevant (myself included), the ROC leadership in not relying on forum members to make their decisions.

Old tanks need to be replaced, but the decision makers are buying ill-fitting equipment. Either it is to please the US (which I actually think is a semi-valid reason actually), or to create the impression that they are doing something.

Abrams is a heavy tank designed to engage Soviet heavy tanks head on in a European land war. You need more explanation than that?

You don't see how their submarine program can fail? They have no construction experience to draw from, no designs on hand, no hope of export to recoup costs, no real foreign help besides virtue-signalling American promises (who don't have any SSK technology). What did you say about making assumptions?

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Here is one source for the failing recruitment. It is not the only one. You can google for yourself. The problems are well documented.

You selectively removed the part of my post where I mentioned that there were over 10 people on the boat and most were able to SWIM to safety. Yes, maybe the victims had some additional bad luck, hit in the head, tangled up in something, etc. etc. However, that is just more assumptions.

I never posted in this thread ever before. I am ambivalent towards ROC military. However, I have a low opinion when I hear news that so many soldiers died in training. When soldiers are killed or injured in training, the leadership should be paying attention. If they make excuses like you are, things will not get better, and more soldiers will die or get hurt.

I posted the news to see if other forum members had any insight/sources.
 

Gatekeeper

Captain
Registered Member
This is incredible. You should apply for ROC Ministry of Information.
"Everything is fine and good! Please carry on!"
You are really going to argue these obvious shortcomings?

I already pointed out that they have 150 F-16A Today. Now, not years from now. They have 200 AMRAAM now, not years from now.
Do the math.

The members of this forum can say whatever they like. It's irrelevant (myself included), the ROC leadership in not relying on forum members to make their decisions.

Old tanks need to be replaced, but the decision makers are buying ill-fitting equipment. Either it is to please the US (which I actually think is a semi-valid reason actually), or to create the impression that they are doing something.

Abrams is a heavy tank designed to engage Soviet heavy tanks head on in a European land war. You need more explanation than that?

You don't see how their submarine program can fail? They have no construction experience to draw from, no designs on hand, no hope of export to recoup costs, no real foreign help besides virtue-signalling American promises (who don't have any SSK technology). What did you say about making assumptions?

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Here is one source for the failing recruitment. It is not the only one. You can google for yourself. The problems are well documented.

You selectively removed the part of my post where I mentioned that there were over 10 people on the boat and most were able to SWIM to safety. Yes, maybe the victims had some additional bad luck, hit in the head, tangled up in something, etc. etc. However, that is just more assumptions.

I never posted in this thread ever before. I am ambivalent towards ROC military. However, I have a low opinion when I hear news that so many soldiers died in training. When soldiers are killed or injured in training, the leadership should be paying attention. If they make excuses like you are, things will not get better, and more soldiers will die or get hurt.

I posted the news to see if other forum members had any insight/sources.
I see you've met out Mr T then. Enjoy debating with him. .
 

Mr T

Senior Member
I already pointed out that they have 150 F-16A Today. Now, not years from now. They have 200 AMRAAM now, not years from now. Do the math.
I understood that they had 300-400 AMRAAMs. Where did you get the 200 figure from?

Abrams is a heavy tank designed to engage Soviet heavy tanks head on in a European land war. You need more explanation than that?
Oh really? I thought it was a light scout tank! :p

Taiwan doesn't have much of a choice. It's Abrams or nothing at the moment.

You don't see how their submarine program can fail?
You didn't say "could" fail, you said the project had "no" prospect of success. Every country had to start their indigenous submarine programmes from somewhere.

Here is one source for the failing recruitment. It is not the only one. You can google for yourself. The problems are well documented.
I'm afraid I don't have a subscription. Could you quote the text that refers to manpower levels?

You selectively removed the part of my post where I mentioned that there were over 10 people on the boat and most were able to SWIM to safety.
You said half, not most. And the fact half were able to swim to safety doesn't mean it was a doddle. That half (probably logically) were the strongest swimmers.

However, I have a low opinion when I hear news that so many soldiers died in training.
Sure, but most of those deaths came from one small boat capsizing. It's sad, but it's not necessarily indicative of wider problems.
 

Breadbox

New Member
Registered Member
Many of the mishaps and accidents may be caused by lack of training, including training of combatants and technicians who maintain their equipment...

If Taiwan is serious about defending itself, they should start acting like it. Maybe lengthening the military service to a reasonable time frame, like 3-4 years? The current 4-month service time is a joke. How does anyone expect to get familiar with any training in 4 months? Weapon systems are getting more sophisticated by the day. Boot camp in the US Army takes 10 weeks. That's 2 and half months. If your entire service time is merely 4 months, you have another month and half after boot camp, even assuming you have a proper boot camp? How do you expect any proper training? How do you expect to yield any effective combatants with a 4-month service time. To this day, I have not heard any logical justification for this...
I’ve done 2 years, there’s little chance that 4 months of prepare those conscripts for anything. But 3-4 years is freakin nuts, ironically, many of the ardent Taiwan Independencer are against lengthening of service, the DPP ever dares raise it to 3-4 years, it’d likely be political suicide.

The budget increase/equipment purchase all about political posturing in the end, they are never going to do something contrary to that.
 

Breadbox

New Member
Registered Member
Well, based on what I know, ROCA's MBT forces are mainly used to defend beachheads. Taiwan's hilly and wet terrain is not very friendly for tanks.
All these talks about how much the Abrams costs, but not much about how the abrams would be used.

I've also heard that primary use of the abrams is for it to be rushed to pre-prepared position over-watching potential landing spots, the lightweight amphibious vehicles would not be a match the abrams. I also believe stingers are procured alongside the beams, certainly curious Taiwan's defence strategy can be leaked/predicted so easily.

I think the line of thinking is clear here: The best way to destroy the tanks would be airpower, especially attack helicopters+UAVs and stingers are a good defence against that.

I’m definitely curious about the PLA approach, the recent development of very long-range helicopter launched ATGM could very well be a response to this. The ground strike capabilities of PLA fixed-wing aviation remains to be seen, considering how skewed towards air defence it is.
 

supersnoop

Junior Member
Registered Member
I understood that they had 300-400 AMRAAMs. Where did you get the 200 figure from?

You said half, not most. And the fact half were able to swim to safety doesn't mean it was a doddle. That half (probably logically) were the strongest swimmers.

Sure, but most of those deaths came from one small boat capsizing. It's sad, but it's not necessarily indicative of wider problems.
Not really interested in going back and forth on this. I will provide a couple links just for posterity, but you can google on your own next time if you think I'm making things up.

I've already completely detailed the entire body of multiple issues that (in my opinion) show a total lack of leadership/professionalism/training (take your pick). It is not the single incident.

AMRAAM: Correction, the 200 was the last purchase. The total is roughly 300, that's assuming every single one purchased 20 years ago is usable. Still a woefully inadequate number.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Reserves: Faced with so many challenges, the MND decided to further cut down the active- duty force, and annual recruitment goals were again lowered.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Older article, but there are such articles everywhere for any date.

All these talks about how much the Abrams costs, but not much about how the abrams would be used.

I've also heard that primary use of the abrams is for it to be rushed to pre-prepared position over-watching potential landing spots, the lightweight amphibious vehicles would not be a match the abrams. I also believe stingers are procured alongside the beams, certainly curious Taiwan's defence strategy can be leaked/predicted so easily.

I think the line of thinking is clear here: The best way to destroy the tanks would be airpower, especially attack helicopters+UAVs and stingers are a good defence against that.

I’m definitely curious about the PLA approach, the recent development of very long-range helicopter launched ATGM could very well be a response to this. The ground strike capabilities of PLA fixed-wing aviation remains to be seen, considering how skewed towards air defence it is.
Thanks, you saved me the time of needing of explaining why Abrams is pretty much a white elephant. Why buy something so expensive when you could probably accomplish the same with ATGM?

I’ve done 2 years, there’s little chance that 4 months of prepare those conscripts for anything. But 3-4 years is freakin nuts, ironically, many of the ardent Taiwan Independencer are against lengthening of service, the DPP ever dares raise it to 3-4 years, it’d likely be political suicide.

The budget increase/equipment purchase all about political posturing in the end, they are never going to do something contrary to that.
The problem with this approach is that it is a total waste of time, money, and resources. Even if they don’t want to extend the time, you should be reforming the system to be useful at least. Why can’t they serve weekends throughout the year or months commitment over years?
 

Gloire_bb

Junior Member
Registered Member
Why buy something so expensive when you could probably accomplish the same with ATGM?
(1)ATGMs are counterable. And they already have lots of them anyways.
(2)attacking already established beachheads w/o armor and direct fire capability will be tricky.
(3)much is said about how tanks are vulnerable, etc. Everything else is far more vulnerable than tanks.
 

Top