Taiwan Military News, Reports, Data, etc.


Skywatcher

Captain
I'm not sure they really need more than that.
Unless they believe deep-strike is the best form of defense, they just need something with newer AESA radar, IRST, and ability to launch home made AAMs.
US has never allowed ROCAF to integrate TC series AAMs to F-16 which means there are a maximum of 2 AMRAAMs per all flyable F-16s. That is a joke. Why only Israel is allowed this special privilege?
Sometimes I think US is simply extorting TW.
Most F-16 customers don't have an interest in developing their own AAMs.

The Turks have integrated the Bozdogan onto the F-16 as well.
 

silentlurker

Junior Member
Registered Member
I'm not sure they really need more than that.
Unless they believe deep-strike is the best form of defense, they just need something with newer AESA radar, IRST, and ability to launch home made AAMs.
US has never allowed ROCAF to integrate TC series AAMs to F-16 which means there are a maximum of 2 AMRAAMs per all flyable F-16s. That is a joke. Why only Israel is allowed this special privilege?
Sometimes I think US is simply extorting TW.
But later block F-16s have all the features you mentioned. Not sure what you meant by TC AAMs, can't all F-16s carry 6 amraams?
 

Andy1974

New Member
Registered Member
Beyond 2050 anything is possible. However, if the CCP wants peaceful absorption of Taiwan I think it would help being clearer about what post-unification for Taiwan means. Hong Kong was supposed to be the model for Taiwan, but given the events of the last 12 months it's unlikely to be desirable. Xi recently offering "Hong Kong Plus" is equally unhelpful, because it still suggests a form of autonomy that is at its core an illusion.

Also, unless Taipei sells out the island and lets the PLA just walk in to occupy it, negotiating Taiwanese politics would be difficult. Merging with the PRC means constitutional change, which in turn requires a supermajority in the legislative yuan and a successful public referendum. For that to happen would require decades of political engagement from Beijing (8 years of KMT rule with Ma didn't even get initial talks on political methods to achieve unification) and ideally no more military threats, as well as some sort of way to protect Taiwanese autonomy without the CCP having the right to revoke or curtail it because they were unhappy with an election result.


These are pretty minor issues that don't do anything to change the de jure position so cannot be called a provocation. Taiwan isn't even proposing to change its constitutional claims to bits of territory the PRC has surrendered to its neighbours.

There are also practical reasons for wanting to make those changes. For example, breaking the link the KMT fostered between itself and the ROC state. Taiwan is now a multi-party state, so it is understandable if non-KMT parties want to make it harder for it to pretend to be the natural party of government.

Similarly, as Taiwanese passport holders can get visa waivers to a much larger number of countries than Chinese ones do, there could be benefits in emphasising the difference to avoid confusion. Few immigration officers outside of Asia are going to immediately understand the difference between the ROC and PRC, but Taiwan is a lot clearer.

That's going to escalate matters, not act as a "warning". China could conceivably avoid a full military escalation or unilateral declaration of independence with an "accidental" shooting down of a single ROCAF plane. But intentionally attacking the Taiwanese military will probably lead to a UDI, because the assumption will be that an invasion is going to follow within the next 6-12 months. It would also have a high risk of making the US recognise Taiwan diplomatically or positioning military assets in a direct position to protect Taiwan.

If China wants to avoid conflict, destroying military assets and killing people isn't the way to do it. Waiting until past 2050 as you initially suggested would be much more sensible.
After 2050, will China be richer than Taiwan? More ecological and beautiful? More efficient, more longer lived and happier?

If so, the Taiwanese people might want to reunify of their own accord, which would be the greatest victory of all. Very Sun Tzu.
 

supersnoop

Junior Member
Registered Member
Most F-16 customers don't have an interest in developing their own AAMs.

The Turks have integrated the Bozdogan onto the F-16 as well.
I guess ROCAF doesn’t want to then. Wouldn’t be surprised if that was the actual reason. I think the politics of defence procurement revolves around “wunderwaffen”.
But later block F-16s have all the features you mentioned. Not sure what you meant by TC AAMs, can't all F-16s carry 6 amraams?
天劍-TC series AAM
F-16 has those features, but there is a question whether they can get more. As to your question about AMRAAM, there are a total of 300 AMRAAM vs something like 900 MICA. Why is the procurement so low?

To maintain numbers you have to do something with IDF, especially since Mirage is a dead end.
 

Mr T

Senior Member
After 2050, will China be richer than Taiwan? More ecological and beautiful? More efficient, more longer lived and happier?
It depends when you mean "after 2050". If you mean at some point in the future not before 2050, yes. If you mean in the 2050s, probably not based on current trends. According to the IMF the gap between the PRC and Taiwan
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
on GDP per capita (PPP) rather than decreasing. I was actually surprised by that and assumed it had been narrowing. So China would need to wait until Taiwan's figures started to level off more.
If so, the Taiwanese people might want to reunify of their own accord, which would be the greatest victory of all. Very Sun Tzu.
Indeed. This is why China should be thinking about the long game. Not least because even if individual Taiwanese were still "richer" on average than Chinese, due to the difference in size of the economies China could in principle afford significant fiscal transfers every year as a sweetner to boost Taiwanese public spending.
 

silentlurker

Junior Member
Registered Member
"The incident took place at around 12:38 p.m. as the jet was taxiing on the runway after landing following a routine training mission"

Is it just me or is the article describing it weirdly? I can't figure out if the pilot landed late or just accidentally taxied into some gravel and got stuck or something.
 

Top