Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Super Vipers Better For Taiwan?  
User currently offlineDEVILFISH From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4853 posts, RR: 1
Posted (5 years 3 months 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 5055 times:

Flightglobal reports that Washington officials are about to revisit Taiwan's request for 66 F-16C/Ds.....

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...taiwans-request-for-new-f-16s.html

Quote:
"Taiwan's plans to buy new Lockheed Martin F-16C/D fighters appear to be gaining some traction, with the outgoing de-facto US ambassador to the island saying that senior officials in Washington are likely to consider the issue shortly.

[.....]

Taiwan's defence minister Chen Chao Min said this week that, contrary to media reports, Washington had not asked Taipei to choose between upgrades to its existing F-16A/Bs and new F-16C/Ds. Requests for mid-life upgrades for the F-16A/Bs and the new fighters are proceeding in tandem, he added."



While "to consider" is neither here nor there, it could be a very positive sign. However, given the PLAAF's continuous buildup, it seems at the very least, a more advanced version is called for. Wouldn't it be more practical for Taipeh to request the Super Viper instead?

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/data/a...onautics/products/f16/f-16in-1.jpg

Doubtless China would instantly issue a vehement protest. But surely, it wouldn't be more virulent than if Taiwan were to ask for the Silent Eagle, which IMHO is what the island nation really needs to counter the Red Chinese threat?


"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
17 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineBlackbird From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (5 years 2 months 4 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 4652 times:

Honestly what we should give Taiwan is a buttload of SAM's that are capable of intercepting ICBM type weapons...

By the way: Does Taiwan have any F-15's


User currently offlinePar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7304 posts, RR: 8
Reply 2, posted (5 years 2 months 4 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 4643 times:

Since most military sales to Taiwan are deemed "defensive" in nature, the F-16 makes more sense as it is a short range defensive fighter, its range can cover all of the island and into the straits, quick enough off the ground to be a good intercepter, they would not need the air to ground package. The F-15 on the other hand is more of an offensive platform, give them a capable AWACS platform and they could really influence things across the straits, so far everyone appears to want only one side to do the influencing, so F-16's for Taiwan, new, old, remodeled, etc. etc. etc.

User currently offlineTrex8 From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 4774 posts, RR: 14
Reply 3, posted (5 years 2 months 4 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 4595 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

they have enough logistical trouble with 4 frontline combat planes - F5, F16, IDF, M2000. They need to add another one like they need a hole in the head! the new F16s will replace the F5s.

Quoting Blackbird (Reply 1):
Honestly what we should give Taiwan is a buttload of SAM's that are capable of intercepting ICBM type weapons...

Give??? Why would we give them anything! They can afford to pay for their weapons unlike many other countries and with a whopping trade imbalance with the US and the 5th largest forex reserves in the world they can pay cash and they don't ask for some ridiculous industrial offset for every purchase they make.

Quoting Par13del (Reply 2):
Since most military sales to Taiwan are deemed "defensive" in nature, the F-16 makes more sense as it is a short range defensive fighter, its range can cover all of the island and into the straits, quick enough off the ground to be a good intercepter, they would not need the air to ground package.

Which is why they got block 20s instead of 40/50s in '92 as the Pentagon didn't want them bombing Shanghai and we still haven't released Jdams., let alone jsow/harm etc to them.


User currently offlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8571 posts, RR: 2
Reply 4, posted (5 years 2 months 4 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 4533 times:



Quoting Trex8 (Reply 3):
They can afford to pay for their weapons unlike many other countries and with a whopping trade imbalance with the US and the 5th largest forex reserves in the world

To my knowledge, Taiwan has always paid for what we send to them, in cash. Compare that to, say, Israel. Israel is rich, too. The difference is that Taiwan has some dignity and self respect.

Quoting DEVILFISH (Thread starter):
But surely, it wouldn't be more virulent than if Taiwan were to ask for the Silent Eagle, which IMHO is what the island nation really needs to counter the Red Chinese threat?

That's hopeful.


User currently offlineLHCVG From United States of America, joined May 2009, 1585 posts, RR: 2
Reply 5, posted (5 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 4500 times:



Quoting Flighty (Reply 4):
To my knowledge, Taiwan has always paid for what we send to them, in cash. Compare that to, say, Israel. Israel is rich, too. The difference is that Taiwan has some dignity and self respect.

Doesn't Israel receive large annual subsidies (of various kinds) from the US gov't? If so, I think it's reasonable to say that they are not very rich. I am only saying this from the perspective of a couple news pieces I've read of the years to the effect that Israel is essentially "propped up" by US subsidies. That is, sure they have some successful businesses but I guess not enough to pay all the bills (whatever they are). To be clear, I am not trying to debate the merits/wisdom of subsidies to Israel, and am just pointing out what I understand to be the situation. AFAIK their defense purchases from us essentially go as credits to our subsidies to them (as in, a $5 billion weapons order would reduce how much we would otherwise give them this year by that much).


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12150 posts, RR: 51
Reply 6, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 4452 times:

The problem with selling Taiwan only defensive weapons, is China can easily overwelm those defensives any time they want. China can absorb those initial losses.

Selling Taiwan offensive weapons, like the F-15SE or F-16C/D Block 50/60, Burke class DDGs, (instead of the Kidd class DDs we sold them), will make the Chinese think more seriously about an attack they might do to Taiwan.


User currently offlineMichlis From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 737 posts, RR: 2
Reply 7, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 4449 times:



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 6):
The problem with selling Taiwan only defensive weapons, is China can easily overwelm those defensives any time they want. China can absorb those initial losses.

Selling Taiwan offensive weapons, like the F-15SE or F-16C/D Block 50/60, Burke class DDGs, (instead of the Kidd class DDs we sold them), will make the Chinese think more seriously about an attack they might do to Taiwan.

True, but the Chinese would probably make a fuss and exert political pressure over the sale of offensive weapons. Nowadays, with the massive amount of US debt they own they do have a bigger political card to play. My guess (and that's all it is folks) is that there won't be a sale of any weapons capable of striking the PRC and even this request for new F-16s will be met with resistance and quite possibly denied.



If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the outcome of a hundred battles.
User currently offlineTrex8 From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 4774 posts, RR: 14
Reply 8, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 4402 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Flighty (Reply 4):
To my knowledge, Taiwan has always paid for what we send to them, in cash.

not only that but after we dropped diplomatic recognition in 79 they actually REPAID to the US a large part of all the grant military aid they had received in the 60s (by the 70s it was almostall just loans) to curry favor with congress. No one else has ever , ever even offered to repay stufff they didn't have to.
when japan was still paying off its WW2 reparations to the US in the early 80s the ROC government was paying off its military grant aid to the US they weren't obligated to repay at all!! maybe some of our other "allies" should take note
they also offered to pay a billion $ to help with the first Gulf war but since everyone in Washington and our other coalition allies are too busy even then brown nosing to Beijing it was declined

Quoting LHCVG (Reply 5):
Doesn't Israel receive large annual subsidies (of various kinds) from the US gov't? If so,

one third of the Israeli military budget is courtesy of the US taxpayer

Quoting Michlis (Reply 7):
My guess (and that's all it is folks) is that there won't be a sale of any weapons capable of striking the PRC and even this request for new F-16s will be met with resistance and quite possibly denied.

they can sell them block 50s or whatever without Jsow/harm/jdams etc and other clearly "offensive " weapons


User currently offlineDEVILFISH From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4853 posts, RR: 1
Reply 9, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 4319 times:



Quoting Trex8 (Reply 8):
Quoting Michlis (Reply 7):
My guess (and that's all it is folks) is that there won't be a sale of any weapons capable of striking the PRC and even this request for new F-16s will be met with resistance and quite possibly denied.

they can sell them block 50s or whatever without Jsow/harm/jdams etc and other clearly "offensive " weapons

Problem is - at just under 200 NM from Taiwan, XMN (the nearest population center on the mainland) is well within the F-16's (or most any other modern fighter's) unrefuelled combat radius - so even a CFT-less Viper woud be a non-starter?



"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1738 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 4311 times:



Quoting DEVILFISH (Reply 9):
Problem is - at just under 200 NM from Taiwan, XMN (the nearest population center on the mainland) is well within the F-16's (or most any other modern fighter's) unrefuelled combat radius - so even a CFT-less Viper woud be a non-starter?

Problem is that they already HAVE the F-16. Just not the latest block being requested.


User currently offlineDEVILFISH From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4853 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 4057 times:

While they're indeed also requesting MLUs for their (150?) youngish F-16A/B Block 20s, those logically wouldn't last longer than brand new airframes. And as they're already intent on splurging on new Block 52s, might as well invest that money on something that will stay relevant farther into the future? Although somehow, one feels this is "pork" driven.


"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
User currently offlineTrex8 From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 4774 posts, RR: 14
Reply 12, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 3997 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

they need to replace the wing of F5Es and have enough planes to remain at Luke for the training squadron which is why they need 66 new F16s. They have lost ? 4 of the block 20s so far. The block 20s could undergo a avionics and possibly powerplant MLU (there was talk once of doing the -220P but I doubt they want to be the only customer but a full -229 upgrade is a total replacement of the engines and more $$ compared to a -220E to-P upgrade) and still have lots of airframe life even without a structural upgrade. IIRC the block 20s actually use block 50 fuselages as there were no suppliers left for the original block 15 fuselages in 92.
range per se is not the issue with the State dept and its concerns on releasing the block 50, its the higher payload and better A2G systems. Even the 600 gal underwing tanks were refused a few years ago as that would have allowed a significant payload increase on a lo- lo-lo attack mission to the mainland though the ROCAF claimed it was to increase CAP endurance only.


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12150 posts, RR: 51
Reply 13, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 3917 times:



Quoting Trex8 (Reply 12):
the issue with the State dept and its concerns on releasing the block 50, its the higher payload and better A2G systems. Even the 600 gal underwing tanks were refused a few years ago

That's what happens when the State department gets involved with FMS programs. They are always afraid somone else will get pissed off at us.


User currently offlineTrex8 From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 4774 posts, RR: 14
Reply 14, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 3845 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 13):
That's what happens when the State department gets involved with FMS programs. They are always afraid somone else will get pissed off at us.

FMS sales are an extension of US foreign policy so I guess its unavoidable they have their say, just in this case the WH should only listen to the DoD!!

OT but something weird is happening with the Taiwan Longbow Apache sale sent for Congressional notification last year. They have contracted for the Stingers just recently but not the airframes yet!!!! WTH is that about!! Anyone ever heard of something similar happening?? A minor part of the weapons being actually contracted for but not the whole platform program??


User currently offlinePar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7304 posts, RR: 8
Reply 15, posted (5 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 3726 times:



Quoting Trex8 (Reply 14):
Anyone ever heard of something similar happening?? A minor part of the weapons being actually contracted for but not the whole platform program??

Quite likely the same issue as the Vipers, how to sell / control military equipment to Taiwan which can only be used for protection over their homeland but have no reach or use over the straits. Methinks the politicians need to get more involved in the design of military equipment rather than attempt to add political considerations to a weapon system after it has already been built.


User currently offlineTrex8 From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 4774 posts, RR: 14
Reply 16, posted (5 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 3628 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Par13del (Reply 15):
Quite likely the same issue as the Vipers, how to sell / control military equipment to Taiwan which can only be used for protection over their homeland but have no reach or use over the straits. Methinks the politicians need to get more involved in the design of military equipment rather than attempt to add political considerations to a weapon system after it has already been built.

I don't think the Stingers which are for air launch with all the appropriate launchers etc can be used on their AH1Ws,AFAIK it could be used on the OH58Ds. So I don't think its a case of Washington saying he's a little something to keep you happy but you can't have the cake. Seems more like, here's the icing and the actual cake will come later as the number of missiles etc is similar to the number in the Apache notification. I wonder if they are stuck on negotiating the industrial offsets etc. For years IDS was prevented by Boeing corporate from negotiating the offsets to avoid annoying Beijing and hurting BCAs sales on the mainland while Bell and Sikorsky were tripping over themselves to discuss these issues even before a formal DoD notification but Boeings line was no discussion till DoD formally requests it. Could Boeing be holding out on concessions on the Apache deal to get a 747-8 order from CI!


User currently offlineDEVILFISH From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4853 posts, RR: 1
Reply 17, posted (5 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 3129 times:

Rand just came out with a report that could significantly influence the way military sales to Taiwan are viewed.....

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/th...and-study-now-china-wins-taiw.html

The F-35 might even get lucky.



"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Super Vipers Better For Taiwan?
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
FAB F-18 Proposal; Fach Signs Up For Super Tucanos posted Fri Aug 15 2008 16:33:42 by PPVRA
Great Time For Usmc To Buy Super Hornets... posted Sun Jun 24 2007 20:09:58 by AirRyan
Super SeaSprites For The RAN, Is It The End? posted Mon May 15 2006 09:59:38 by Ozair
Super Hornets For Bulgaria? (F-5's Too!) posted Fri Mar 24 2006 04:26:57 by AirRyan
Super Lynx For Oman posted Sun Jan 20 2002 09:38:41 by MightyFalcon
New Career For Buzz Aldrin? posted Fri Jun 26 2009 01:09:36 by Scooter01
Stephen Trimble: Antonov Looking For An-70 Revival posted Tue Jun 16 2009 05:25:12 by VirginFlyer
C-17 For Indian Air Force? posted Sun Jun 14 2009 04:16:38 by Lumberton
NH-90 Still Too Heavy For Dutch Frigates posted Fri Jun 12 2009 07:53:08 by Lumberton
Lockheed Martin Receives $2.1 Billion For F-35 posted Tue Jun 9 2009 07:07:56 by MCIGuy
Usaf Cancels Contract For Super Tucanos posted Tue Feb 28 2012 14:16:29 by voar
Is Super Hornet That Much Better Than F-14? posted Sat Dec 11 2010 11:10:28 by bmacleod
Ngad For Super Hornet Replacement? posted Fri May 7 2010 10:25:54 by Devilfish
Key Lawmakers Reiterate Push For More Super Hornet posted Wed Jan 21 2009 14:09:04 by AirRyan
FAB F-18 Proposal; Fach Signs Up For Super Tucanos posted Fri Aug 15 2008 16:33:42 by PPVRA
Great Time For Usmc To Buy Super Hornets... posted Sun Jun 24 2007 20:09:58 by AirRyan
Super SeaSprites For The RAN, Is It The End? posted Mon May 15 2006 09:59:38 by Ozair
Super Hornets For Bulgaria? (F-5's Too!) posted Fri Mar 24 2006 04:26:57 by AirRyan
Super Lynx For Oman posted Sun Jan 20 2002 09:38:41 by MightyFalcon
Hawks For Saudi Arabia posted Wed May 23 2012 22:56:40 by Garyck

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format