Forum: F-35 versus XYZ

Quote:

Taiwan has been going about begging this or that country to sell them some new submarines for awhile now, but no one (not even the US) wants to risk pi$$ing the PRC off.

Exactly, this is well documented. The US doesn't build conventionally powered subs. The countries that do have been brow-beaten pretty effectively to date by the their creditor (China) not to go there. Likewise we have recently refused them F-16 Block 60s, Apache Lowbows, newer Patriot versions, M-1A2 tanks. Hopefully the inexplicable reason for this will get reversed in November. We need jobs, they need and want the weapons, it seems natural doesn't it??? Anyway, the point to providing Taiwan with these capabilities in not so they can defend themselves autonomously, it IS to allow them to hang on until we muster the forces required to insure their successful defense.

F-16.net Sponsor

hb,

I'm not from the Navy. And your responses are too long winded. Jesus, you need a military writing course. Ever heard of brevity? If you want me or anyone else to read doctrine or treaty language, just post a link to it.

The reason Taiwan never got it's subs was because of local politics that prevented them,from ever appropriating any money for the equipment.

southernphantom wrote:

I personally believe that Taiwan should be focusing on anti-access technologies similar to what China and Iran are reportedly doing. This would primarily mean SAMs, ASMs, and dispersed land and air forces. The goal would be to present a hardened and dispersed defense network that would require more time to dismantle piece-by-piece than the Chinese have before the US commits its own forces.
The current RoCAF strategic SAM inventory is 3-10 PAC-3 batteries, 6 Sky Bow batteries, and 19 Hawk batteries supposedly being replaced with 12 Sky Bow batteries. The Sky Bow system seems roughly comparable to a Patriot battery. Overall, it seems fairly capable, though I am unsure how well it would actually stack up to the PLAAF.

The problem is the SAM inventories are emitter based which makes it identifiable with the amount of electronic monitoring going on in that area. Not that easy to hide a SAM site (even if the ROC has back up ones). PLAAF anti-sam missiles will outrange the SAMs. They even have a 60km range PGM that's becoming standard on the numerous J-10s/JH-7s (outranges the I-Hawk). Buying mobile AD like Avenger is only a stop gap measure.

It will still fall on the ROCAF as the mainline of defense. ROC needs fighters more than anything. With J-10s,J-11s in PLAAF inventory, ROC needs advanced fighters more than just numbers.

popcorn wrote:

The reason Taiwan never got it's subs was because of local politics that prevented them,from ever appropriating any money for the equipment.

How did that go?

weasel - sorry, but I think that you're just flat out wrong. SAMs can deny airspace, advanced fighters will be swarmed and destroyed on the ground. Furthermore, the ROC doesn't have the budget to purchase a sufficient 5th gen fighter force to have any hope against the Chinese.

Finally, why should the US give advanced fighter tech to the ROC when the ROC's defense budget isn't as high, percentage of GDP-wise, as the US? If they aren't willing to invest in their own defense, then why should the US take the relationalship hit, and the potential espionage hit, by sending them F-35s? It makes no sense.

arkadyrenko wrote:

Finally, why should the US give advanced fighter tech to the ROC when the ROC's defense budget isn't as high, percentage of GDP-wise, as the US? If they aren't willing to invest in their own defense, then why should the US take the relationalship hit, and the potential espionage hit, by sending them F-35s? It makes no sense.

And more to the point, WTF have the ROC EVER done to help the USA in anything, much less any conflict? Yet, somehow, they expect the USA to send their sons and daughters to die and bleed for them, and spend vast sums of money, and endure much economic hardship, and say that to us with a straight face. Why?

1. They let us use CCK airbase in Tai Chung for many years during the Viet Nam war.

2. Ever hear of the Black Cat Squadron? 28 ROC pilots flew 220 U-2 recon missions over China, Viet Nam, Laos, and North Korea from 1960 to 1974. All photos and other intelligence data was directly delivered to the CIA. One of those pilots is an acquaintance of mine and was awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross by the USAF during his training in the USA. Eleven of those 28 pilots were lost during this activity.

There's more, but can't be talked about.

From,Wiki,,more ROC,contributions to the war effort in VN.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic ... ietnam_War

johnwill wrote:

1. They let us use CCK airbase in Tai Chung for many years during the Viet Nam war.

2. Ever hear of the Black Cat Squadron? 28 ROC pilots flew 220 U-2 recon missions over China, Viet Nam, Laos, and North Korea from 1960 to 1974. All photos and other intelligence data was directly delivered to the CIA. One of those pilots is an acquaintance of mine and was awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross by the USAF during his training in the USA. Eleven of those 28 pilots were lost during this activity.

There's more, but can't be talked about.

On a tangent, but I have a poignant picture from the China People's Revolution Military Museum of one of those aircraft.

redbird87 wrote:

hb,

I'm not from the Navy. And your responses are too long winded. Jesus, you need a military writing course. Ever heard of brevity?

I have taken courses and did quite well, thank you. Unfortunately issues surrounding weapons of mass destruction don't easily reduce into the simplistic explanations you seem to put forward.

Might I suggest you take one on Nuclear strategy or geopolitics before coming here and trying to lecture on the subject...

...that is of course if you can bear to read through that material.

stereospace wrote:

arkadyrenko wrote:

Finally, why should the US give advanced fighter tech to the ROC when the ROC's defense budget isn't as high, percentage of GDP-wise, as the US? If they aren't willing to invest in their own defense, then why should the US take the relationalship hit, and the potential espionage hit, by sending them F-35s? It makes no sense.

And more to the point, WTF have the ROC EVER done to help the USA in anything, much less any conflict? Yet, somehow, they expect the USA to send their sons and daughters to die and bleed for them, and spend vast sums of money, and endure much economic hardship, and say that to us with a straight face. Why?

There are a number of reasons why the US is a stalwart defender of Taiwain

Very clearly: We created this mess. The United States basically established the ROC by providing it direct support from 1948 onward. It encouraged Nationalist forces to establish a bastion on the island and build it into an semi-independent state, one that was the "legitimate" government of China. On a political/diplomatic level this meant keeping the ROC in China's UN seat until 1971. Militarily (as John Will pointed out) the United States used the island as a military base for operations against the PRC. We sent thousands of Republican Chinese to their deaths for our geo-political purposes. Related to this, its a question of credibility concerning the United States' diplomatic relations. If this is one of the United States' stalwart allies and if it were to fall, what does that say to other strong allies like Japan and Korea. IF they start questioning the value of their security alliances, then they might abrogate the treaty to ensure their own security. That could ultimately lead to such destabilizing outcomes like a nuclear arms race involving Japan and Korea.

Second, on a more fundamental level, supporting Taiwan is a question of maintaining international order that has respect for democratic values and individual self determination. This is one of the core foundations of US foreign policy. What does it say if we allow a democratic state to be bullied into submission by a much stronger neighbour.

Finally defending Taiwan means maintaining stability and order in a key US area.Taiwan is an important source of goods and investment in the Asia Pacific. It also creates an important buffer that keeps China's territorial ambitions in check. Sea lanes can operate nearly uninterrupted from the Indian ocean to Northern Asia. Its removal basically means Korea and Japan will become vulnerable to the whims of a chinese government.

This does not mean that Taiwan should not live up to its defence commitments. Right now it spends around 2.2 ~2.5% of GDP on the military... which is about the average with countries in the region. It also needs to manage its relations with China, to defuse tensions and move towards reconciliation.

arkadyrenko wrote:

weasel - sorry, but I think that you're just flat out wrong. SAMs can deny airspace, advanced fighters will be swarmed and destroyed on the ground. Furthermore, the ROC doesn't have the budget to purchase a sufficient 5th gen fighter force to have any hope against the Chinese.

Nothing to be sorry about. No country has ever successfully defended its airspace with SAMs alone so history at least is on my side. The Arabs tried that, the Iraqis tried that. We know the end-results. Anyone who has exercised in an IADS environments knows that fighters are still the main-stay/critical element.

As to what is a "sufficient" 5th gen force, it really depends on the strategic aims. If the intent is to shoot down ALL PLAAF aircraft, then it may not be sufficient even if history tells us that a small force used well can defeat a larger force e.g. 6-day war. If the intent is to hold on until the US cavalry arrives, then the likelihood of it being "sufficient" would probably be higher.

arkadyrenko wrote:

Finally, why should the US give advanced fighter tech to the ROC when the ROC's defense budget isn't as high, percentage of GDP-wise, as the US? If they aren't willing to invest in their own defense, then why should the US take the relationalship hit, and the potential espionage hit, by sending them F-35s? It makes no sense.

If US is willing to sell the ROC F-35s, their budget would likely be higher than the US %-age wise to afford it. I think the Taiwanese are willing to spend. They spent billions on things like P-3s, Patriots etc. AND they want F-16s so its not a question of them not willing to invest in their own defense.

I don't think the Taiwanese, from my personal experience dealing with them, are that risky from an esionage standpoint. At least no more than the Japanese or Koreans are. Can the US exercise significant controls over its arms sales? Can't say too much but imhe there are controls.

[quote="hb_pencil"][.....Finally defending Taiwan means maintaining stability and order in a key US area.....quote]

I agree with all that was said. My generation was given an interesting senior trip after high school to "a land faraway where it rained both bullets and bombs". We understood that it was to protect democracy and our way of life. Perhaps this is debatable by all who were not there but "We the People" did our duty, as the politicians would let us. Now we understand that in a small way those efforts did insure to the world that the U.S. will commit to our right to international trade and we will protect our right to world commerce with our military forces. These are our children and we will arm them with the best weapons possible.

[quote="neptune"]

hb_pencil wrote:

[.....Finally defending Taiwan means maintaining stability and order in a key US area.....quote]

I agree with all that was said. My generation was given an interesting senior trip after high school to "a land faraway where it rained both bullets and bombs". We understood that it was to protect democracy and our way of life. Perhaps this is debatable by all who were not there but "We the People" did our duty, as the politicians would let us. Now we understand that in a small way those efforts did insure to the world that the U.S. will commit to our right to international trade and we will protect our right to world commerce with our military forces. These are our children and we will arm them with the best weapons possible.

Just wanted to say this was inspiring, even for someone not of that generation.
Smile

Forum: F-35 versus XYZ

F-35: Super Hornet hedge