Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
U.S. To Deny Taiwan New F-16 Fighters  
User currently offlineJakeOrion From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 1255 posts, RR: 3
Posted (3 years 4 months 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 17691 times:

Quote:
TAIPEI - Bowing to Chinese pressure, the U.S. will deny Taiwan's request for 66 new F-16C/D fighter aircraft, a Taiwan Ministry of National Defense (MND) official said.

"We are so disappointed in the United States," he said.

A U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) delegation arrived here last week to deliver the news and offer instead a retrofit package for older F-16A/Bs that includes an active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar.
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=7378123&c=AME&s=AIR

It boggles the mind of why China would care about this. To me, strong indicator of China wishing to acquire Taiwan.


Every problem has a simple solution; finding the simple solution is the difficult problem.
108 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinecosmofly From United States of America, joined May 2009, 649 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (3 years 4 months 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 17666 times:

With modern weapons, Taiwan is basically not defensible against the fast growing China. It will be a waste of money to buy the F16C/D anyway. The money may be better spent by Taiwan building more missiles for symbolic deterrence - some sort of MAD strategy.

As for the symbolic air defense, Taiwan can use the fund to build some next gen IDFs.

So IMO this is a good thing for Taiwan. The increasing ties between the people of Taiwan and China is making military options more and more senseless.


User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 26128 posts, RR: 50
Reply 2, posted (3 years 4 months 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 17591 times:

Very disappointing.

Seems like we are turning our backs to an ever growing degree to the defense of Taiwan.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineAirRyan From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2532 posts, RR: 5
Reply 3, posted (3 years 4 months 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 17499 times:

After stuff like this and our economy over the past couple of years, I'm beginning to understand what President Obama says about being embarrassed for this country. No wonder he goes around the world apologizing to foreign nations about all of our perceived faults.  

Not even Pakistan was stupid enough to settle for their A model F-16's, and I'm only further embarrassed that we would offer to upgrade their A models even further, but still deny them the common sense of an upgraded power plant. If Taiwan does all that the US conceded, they will basically have C model Block 50's, just minus the thrust and reliability of a good GE F110 power plant.

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_users_article19.html

But what is all the more so ironic, is that we just all but told China to stick it not but three weeks ago now when they complained over our U-2 flights near their airspace. Apparently we had no problem offending China then.

Quote:

“We will continue to fly these missions in international airspace as a matter of freedom of navigation,” said Marine Col. Dave Lapan, a Pentagon spokesman.

China's Defense Ministry demanded an end to the U.S. military flights, according to a report Wednesday in the Global Times newspaper, part of the Communist Party-controlled news media.

“We demand that the U.S. respect China’s sovereignty and security interests, and take concrete measures to boost a healthy and stable development of military relations,” the ministry said.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...call-to-halt-spy-flights-near-chi/


User currently offlineB727LVR From United States of America, joined Jul 2008, 630 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (3 years 4 months 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 17357 times:

I am going to take an educated guess here... I do not know the current relations between China and Taiwan, but if China is poised to aquire or takeover Taiwan, and with the recent possibility that China was able to get a sneek peek at the stealth 60 from Pakistan, the decision to not sell the them the newer F-16's makes sense.

Would we rather Taiwan not fall to China? Yes... However... If we were to sell them the new equipment, and China does get Taiwan, now they have free access to the aircraft. Now I know we wont sell them an exact copy of what we use, but even some of the building process' could be considered sensitive. The biggest problem to me, is the uncertainty of it all. So you would have to ask, right now even with economics the way they are, would this be an acceptable risk?



I'm like a kid in a candy store when it comes to planes!
User currently offlinefsnuffer From United States of America, joined Jun 2007, 252 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (3 years 4 months 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 17226 times:

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 2):

Very disappointing.

Seems like we are turning our backs to an ever growing degree to the defense of Taiwan.


We are turning our backs to a lot of long time allies. There is still long term fallout from Obama turning over UK nuclear secrets to get the latest arms reduction treaty with the Russians signed.


User currently offlineredflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4376 posts, RR: 28
Reply 6, posted (3 years 4 months 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 17019 times:

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 2):
Very disappointing.

Seems like we are turning our backs to an ever growing degree to the defense of Taiwan.

At this point, I'm not quite sure what we would be defending Taiwan against? It is "China" in every respect, except the form of government. What would be the loss to us after 33 years of recognizing the PRC as the real China? If China were to take over Taiwan (let's assume peacefully), will life on the island change? Would the PRC dare make wholesale changes or shut down businesses on the island, which would represent it's most productive and profitable province?

I think on this one issue, the U.S. is mired in a Cold War mentality. Defending Taiwan for Taiwan's sake is not worth the effort. Now, if we're doing it as a way of making a stand against PRC military ambitions, I can understand that, but I think there are better ways to go about doing that.

Quoting B727LVR (Reply 4):
If we were to sell them the new equipment, and China does get Taiwan, now they have free access to the aircraft. Now I know we wont sell them an exact copy of what we use, but even some of the building process' could be considered sensitive.

If you're talking about the F-16, that is not considered "new" equipment. It is a 35+ year old design and everybody and their grandmother owns one. I'm sure the Chinese have already gotten their hands on a few out of service airframes and given them a good going-over.



My other home is a Piper Cherokee 180C
User currently offlinebikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 2191 posts, RR: 4
Reply 7, posted (3 years 4 months 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 16808 times:

I'm no military strategist, but as current events have shown that the best defense against an overwhelmingly superior force is not to have high tech weapons but lots of low tech for use in insurgency.

Any major shooting war between China and Taiwan would be over relatively quickly and the Taiwanese would have to revert to and unconventional war (resistance).

The only thing the F-16 would do is provide the Taiwanese more time to enable the US forces to come and rescue.

If the US planners decide that the F-16 would not even provide sufficient time buffer, then what good would they do?

Like some one has already noted, the money might be better spent buying a bunch of mobile SAM's and SS missiles to protect from air and sea invasion. Besides, these missiles would be easier/cheaper to maintain than the F-16's.

bikerthai



Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 26128 posts, RR: 50
Reply 8, posted (3 years 4 months 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 16694 times:

Quoting redflyer (Reply 6):
At this point, I'm not quite sure what we would be defending Taiwan against? It is "China" in every respect, except the form of government. What would be the loss to us after 33 years of recognizing the PRC as the real China? If China were to take over Taiwan (let's assume peacefully), will life on the island change? Would the PRC dare make wholesale changes or shut down businesses on the island, which would represent it's most productive and profitable province?

I think on this one issue, the U.S. is mired in a Cold War mentality. Defending Taiwan for Taiwan's sake is not worth the effort. Now, if we're doing it as a way of making a stand against PRC military ambitions, I can understand that, but I think there are better ways to go about doing that.

Deciding to join up with China as a single state is decision for Taiwan to make. In the interim the defense of Taiwan and ensuring its freedom has long been a US policy. At the very least such a policy kept China at bay, and made them have to think twice before acting on any imperialistic motives such as they have displayed with other territories.

In addition and especially now with China growing aggressiveness in the South China Sea which has created concern from the Philippines to Vietnam all the way down to Singapore, the strong support of Taiwan acts as a defacto stance the US takes in the region. China sensing US weakness and lack of resolve with Taiwan surely then knows its unlikely we will do much of anything as Chine seeks to push its territorial rights into the South China Sea, and one day possibly into the broader Pacific.

What the US does not realize today is that by refusing the sale of modern equipment to Taiwan is simply one move in a large chess match which China is pursuing in the region. China is in no rush, matter of fact in typical fashion looks out decades in posturing its foreign policy.

Unfortunately, with this decision we are on the way to folding our cards and our broader might in the region.
As Lee Kuan Yew the elder statesman of Singapore said in his biography:
"The greatest danger East Asian nations face is not the awakening dragon, but a toothless American tiger. Without the existence of local balance of power, the emphasis of regional security, and creation of coalitions and alliances, the Asia Pacific region will loose the stability required to peacefully prosper. Without balance, the dragon will be left to roam as it desires while we all watch and worry that it does not happen to breathe on us.

[Edited 2011-08-18 20:25:42]


From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlinemffoda From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1109 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (3 years 4 months 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 16673 times:

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 7):

I'm no military strategist, but as current events have shown that the best defense against an overwhelmingly superior force is not to have high tech weapons but lots of low tech for use in insurgency.

bikerthai, I enjoy your comments, but there is several recent examples that counter your argument regarding the above statement.

Iraq, first and foremost suggests that the insurgents (homegrown or foreign) don't have the military capabilities to engage any well organized western military formation with any chance of success. The same goes for the Afghan theater.

As far as the Taiwan is concerned... I'm not so worried about mainland China? Sometimes, It appears that One country (or allied group or countries) has a specific military advantage over another? Like Libya... This should have been a slam dunk for western forces... But, without the logistical capability (US not fully committed) to move man and machine, It becomes a sizable task.

The main reason that China is really no immediate threat, is that they don't have the Expeditionary capabilities to cross the straight... For example, think back to WW2 and Germany's lack of maritime expeditionary assets to invade England. This is also China's problem.

Rgds,



harder than woodpecker lips...
User currently offlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined exactly 9 years ago today! , 5478 posts, RR: 31
Reply 10, posted (3 years 4 months 2 days ago) and read 16599 times:

Chinas problem is what happens to their global markets if they decided to strike out militarily? It's all fine and dandy to keep your Tienanmen's within ones borders but striking out at what the rest of the world sees as an independent country, would send the very important markets for a loop and would send anti Chinese sentiment through the roof.

China cares more about the dollars and euros it's taking in more than a unified China. There are lots of places in the world that can make cheap t shirts.



What the...?
User currently offlinebikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 2191 posts, RR: 4
Reply 11, posted (3 years 4 months 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 16543 times:

Quoting mffoda (Reply 9):

Iraq, first and foremost suggests that the insurgents (homegrown or foreign) don't have the military capabilities to engage any well organized western military formation with any chance of success.

This is true for a conventional fight. It is not true for a guerrilla war specially if the populace is with the guerrilla. In Iraq and Afghanistan, the conventional fight was won quickly, the unconventional fight only turned in area where the populace came over to our side. China will not have the second option in Taiwan

Quoting mffoda (Reply 9):
Like Libya... This should have been a slam dunk for western forces... But, without the logistical capability (US not fully committed) to move man and machine, It becomes a sizable task.

Letting the rebel fight the ground war has gone relatively well. They have isolated Tripoli with NATO's help in a span of 6 months. That's quite a feat when you are out gunned in most confrontation but made easier when you have knowledge of local terrain and have the backing of the local people.

Quoting mffoda (Reply 9):
The main reason that China is really no immediate threat, is that they don't have the Expeditionary capabilities to cross the straight...

I agree with this point 100%. Logistics would be China's major problem in conquering Taiwan. Not only from the initial invasion stand point but through the subsequent counter insurgency fight. From that standpoint, maybe some diesel submarine would be more beneficial to the Taiwanese than the F16s?

Remember, during WWII the Allied never really solved their logistic problem until they finally captured Amsterdam. The largest French port was held by the Germans till the end of the war and the next largest was way too far south.


Oh, and I'm surprised no one commented on the real reason why the F-16 (or diesel sub) will not be sold to Taiwan . . . ALL THE US BONDS THAT CHINA HOLDS. Or is this so much a given that we take it for granted?

bikerthai

[Edited 2011-08-19 06:27:03]


Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
User currently offlineDevilfish From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4952 posts, RR: 1
Reply 12, posted (3 years 4 months 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 16416 times:

Quoting cosmofly (Reply 1):
With modern weapons, Taiwan is basically not defensible against the fast growing China. It will be a waste of money to buy the F16C/D anyway

Those would at least give them a choice to defend themselves or surrender outright.

Quoting cosmofly (Reply 1):
As for the symbolic air defense, Taiwan can use the fund to build some next gen IDFs.
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/asian-skies/2011/08/12/2011-08-11_10-14-00_217%20%281%29.jpg
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/as...1-08-11_10-14-00_217%20%281%29.jpg

The IDF could be relied on for CAP duties, but (if the thrust upgrades were not completed) really needed the F404 engine, and perhaps a downscaled AESA or at least a later version radar to be really useful.

Quoting B727LVR (Reply 4):
and with the recent possibility that China was able to get a sneek peek at the stealth 60 from Pakistan, the decision to not sell the them the newer F-16's makes sense.
.
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/th...8/video-j-20-rocks-then-rolls.html

More likely that they received stealth technology from the Russians.....

http://www.military-today.com/aircraft/mikoyan_mig_mfi.htm

Quote:
"However in 2010 photos of the new Chinese J-20 stealthy multi-role fighter appeared, which is very similar to the MiG 1.42. It is speculated, that development of the J-20 was assisted by the MiG aviation company."

Quoting redflyer (Reply 6):
At this point, I'm not quite sure what we would be defending Taiwan against? It is "China" in every respect, except the form of government. What would be the loss to us after 33 years of recognizing the PRC as the real China?

Freedom of navigation in the Taiwan Strait and commercial exploration in the potentially oil-rich Spratlys?

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 7):
but as current events have shown that the best defense against an overwhelmingly superior force is not to have high tech weapons but lots of low tech for use in insurgency.

Insurgents would also like to have a little of the good stuff...to level the playing field a bit, so to speak.

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 7):
Any major shooting war between China and Taiwan would be over relatively quickly and the Taiwanese would have to revert to and unconventional war (resistance). The only thing the F-16 would do is provide the Taiwanese more time to enable the US forces to come and rescue.

Maybe that's all they want?

Quoting mffoda (Reply 9):
Iraq, first and foremost suggests that the insurgents (homegrown or foreign) don't have the military capabilities to engage any well organized western military formation with any chance of success. The same goes for the Afghan theater.
Quoting mffoda (Reply 9):
The main reason that China is really no immediate threat, is that they don't have the Expeditionary capabilities to cross the straight...
.
http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=...ALevNCTAQ&ved=0CE0Q9QEwCA&dur=6362

Minus outside help, 111+ miles are all that separate Taiwan from the mainland...it's not halfway around the world. I tend to think that China need only mobilize a small fraction of its vast tonnage of tanker, cargo and container fleet (with sea and air cover) plus the planes the West had been selling them, to launch a successful invasion (after softening the island's defenses, of course).

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 11):

This is true for a conventional fight. It is not true for a guerrilla war specially if the populace is with the guerrilla. In Iraq and Afghanistan, the conventional fight was won quickly, the unconventional fight only turned in area where the populace came over to our side. China will not have the second option in Taiwan

Let us not forget that the PLA are past masters at guerilla warfare...with the numbers to back them up.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 10):
Chinas problem is what happens to their global markets if they decided to strike out militarily? It's all fine and dandy to keep your Tienanmen's within ones borders but striking out at what the rest of the world sees as an independent country, would send the very important markets for a loop and would send anti Chinese sentiment through the roof.

China cares more about the dollars and euros it's taking in more than a unified China. There are lots of places in the world that can make cheap t shirts.

I'm really hoping such is their mindset, and peaceful co-existence their ultimate goal. What would they do with a desolate, bombed out island other than use it as their Pacific outpost and launch pad?



"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined exactly 9 years ago today! , 7625 posts, RR: 8
Reply 13, posted (3 years 4 months 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 16398 times:

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 7):
The only thing the F-16 would do is provide the Taiwanese more time to enable the US forces to come and rescue.

So where exactly are all these forces that the US has allocated to the defense of Taiwan, we knew where and how they intended to defend Europe and South Korea.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 8):
Deciding to join up with China as a single state is decision for Taiwan to make.

I wonder why no one wants the Taiwan people to vote on that straight up, surely the reason cannot be what China would do if the outcome was independence and application to the UN for a new state.

Quoting mffoda (Reply 9):
Iraq, first and foremost suggests that the insurgents (homegrown or foreign) don't have the military capabilities to engage any well organized western military formation with any chance of success. The same goes for the Afghan theater.

So Iraq and Afghanistan are now pacified and the people united in building their nation?

Quoting mffoda (Reply 9):
The main reason that China is really no immediate threat, is that they don't have the Expeditionary capabilities to cross the straight... For example, think back to WW2 and Germany's lack of maritime expeditionary assets to invade England.

I thought Germany never invaded because Hitler was a "closet Englishman"

Crossing the strait is doable, anyone understand the strategy of all those SSM's pointed across the strait, soldiers can be flown across and ships will follow, how many submarines can / will the US deploy, would China use massive amphibious ships to carry troops over or hundreds of smaller ships / boats? Will submarines deploy multi-million torpedoes against small boats or wait for the bigger vessels?
In todays environment, boots on the ground can almost be a win, sure they may have difficulty re-supplying but by then the negotiators are involved and the desire for a long war on China's doorstep while the US logistic tail is thousands of miles long is not pratical in this day and age. The US is a net importer not exporter, its industrial base in terms of producing items for a sustained conflict is greatly diminished, not talking about precision weaponry.


User currently offlinecosmofly From United States of America, joined May 2009, 649 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (3 years 4 months 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 16379 times:

Quoting Devilfish (Reply 12):
Those would at least give them a choice to defend themselves or surrender outright.

I doubt how much time the F16s can buy. I would expect the Chinese will destroy the few airports before any air war can begin. A large number of mobile SAMs, plus a lot of SSMs against coastal bases and cross strait ships, will probably buy the more time.

Best symbolic deterrence, IMO are subs and UAVs which act as missile launch pads.

Quoting Devilfish (Reply 12):
The IDF could be relied on for CAP duties, but (if the thrust upgrades were not completed) really needed the F404 engine, and perhaps a downscaled AESA or at least a later version radar to be really useful.

Taiwan will never get F404. However IDF's TFE1042-70 can be upgraded, may be up to 12000lb.

Bottom line, Taiwan, even with US help, is in a no-win situation if China decides to take over. Luckily China is more busy making money, buying properties in and sending tourists to Taiwan while many Taiwanese are living and making tonnes of money in China.


User currently offlinePolymerPlane From United States of America, joined May 2006, 991 posts, RR: 3
Reply 15, posted (3 years 4 months 9 hours ago) and read 16165 times:

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 7):
The only thing the F-16 would do is provide the Taiwanese more time to enable the US forces to come and rescue.

If the US planners decide that the F-16 would not even provide sufficient time buffer, then what good would they do?

Like some one has already noted, the money might be better spent buying a bunch of mobile SAM's and SS missiles to protect from air and sea invasion. Besides, these missiles would be easier/cheaper to maintain than the F-16's.

I don't get this arguement. The US did suggest them to buy missiles instead of the F-16s. They deny the sale of F-16. I really doubt the denial is based on strategic need of Taiwan. I have never heard US Government denying a foreign arms export based on what the country needs. It was always based on whether they are ally or human rights violations.

I don't think the US dictates Taiwanese defense policy, and I especially don't buy that the reason of this arms purchase denial is based on what the US thinks of the Taiwanese strategic "needs." It is one thing saying "sure you can buy these things, but you really need more missiles." But to outright ban the sale? come on..



One day there will be 100% polymer plane
User currently offlineZkpilot From New Zealand, joined Mar 2006, 4865 posts, RR: 10
Reply 16, posted (3 years 4 months 6 hours ago) and read 16128 times:

The problem with China taking over Taiwan is that there would be a lot of politcal prisoners in Taiwan. Other than that yes PRC would want to keep Taiwan successful.

For the rest of the world the bigger issue is PRC gaining a complete stranglehold on the South China Sea if they get Taiwan. That means no shipping through the strait without PRC permission (USA would protest but would no longer rish a carrier group in the process). Japan, Phillipeans, Vietnam, etc would all miss out on a lot of resources (as it is China is trying to bully them somewhat successfully).

Quite literally in this modern age there is no "need" for China to take over Taiwan (small countries are viable just look at Singapore etc). It is heading towards MAD just without the nukes on Taiwans side (I bet they have enough missiles aimed at Beijing to level the city though which is probably why China has not acted). If they got Taiwan then whats next? Mongolia? Vietnam etc?



56 types. 38 countries. 24 airlines.
User currently offlineOroka From Canada, joined Dec 2006, 913 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (3 years 4 months 6 hours ago) and read 16119 times:

China is not stupid. China is spending money in Taiwan, making itself look more and more attractive. Give it 50 years, Taiwan will join China of its own free will. Maybe as a special independent state... but the time will come.

My oldest son is about to start Kindergarten in a few weeks, I think he would be better off learning Chinese than French in the coming years :/ The world is changing... people just refuse to see it.


User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined exactly 9 years ago today! , 7625 posts, RR: 8
Reply 18, posted (3 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 15996 times:

Quoting Zkpilot (Reply 16):
(I bet they have enough missiles aimed at Beijing to level the city though which is probably why China has not acted).

Since the US has some say on the military weaponery Taiwan has, if they have such missiles they must be home grown, as the US has not been supplying Taiwan with offensive weapons, missiles that could reach Beijing would fall in that category.
Besides, surface to surface missilies are not items the US military has much use for, it allows the US Army a longer reach on the battlefield thus removing some of their reliance on the Air Force, definately a no no. MRLS or long range arty to about 30 miles anything over that belongs to aircraft.


User currently offlineShmertspionem From India, joined Aug 2006, 453 posts, RR: 1
Reply 19, posted (3 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 15712 times:

Quoting redflyer (Reply 6):
I think on this one issue, the U.S. is mired in a Cold War mentality. Defending Taiwan for Taiwan's sake is not worth the effort.
Quoting redflyer (Reply 6):

If you're talking about the F-16, that is not considered "new" equipment. It is a 35+ year old design and everybody and their grandmother owns one.

Unfortunately it is -

1) If the US fails to defend Taiwan it loses face and credibility with other Asian allies
2) If the US fails to supply Taiwan to defend itself it simply strengthens Taiwan's urge to go nuclear at some point
3) It also strengthens every other Asian country's urge to go nuclear ... we are already seeing signs of Vietnam having approached ROK and India on this. ... and Japan seems to have started the debate in earnest at the bureaucratic level.

Whatever the F-16 it is still vastly superior to the bulk of Chinese planes - electronically at least, and Taiwan's defence has always been about Quality over Quantity.


On the other side though - the KMT by its inconsistent politics and the string of security breaches it has sought to brush under the carpet - has lost US trust. If the US supplies Taiwan with weapons - they have no guarantees that some Idiot from the KMT wont decide to gift it to china as a good will measure.



Vi veri universum vivus vici
User currently offlinekeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (3 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 15625 times:

Capitalism at it finest.

China currently owns $1.2 trillion of U.S. Treasury debt, the largest stake of any central bank.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/0...-blasts-us-over-cred_n_920094.html

Advises to stop spending so much were proudly dismissed for a decade. Reaganism spending while cutting tax.

Now it's pay back time.


User currently offlinebikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 2191 posts, RR: 4
Reply 21, posted (3 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 15600 times:

Quoting Devilfish (Reply 12):
Let us not forget that the PLA are past masters at guerilla warfare...with the numbers to back them up.

That was what? 70 years ago? And all the veterans of that war was killed off during the cultural revolution.
The last campaign China had was with Vietnam with a border skirmish. China claimed victory by teaching Vietnam a lesson but had its nosed bloodied.

Wonder if any leaders from that campaign survived the "re-organization" after that?

Quoting PolymerPlane (Reply 15):
They deny the sale of F-16. I really doubt the denial is based on strategic need of Taiwan.

Just a theory . . .

US public debt was another.

Quoting Shmertspionem (Reply 19):
have no guarantees that some Idiot from the KMT wont decide to gift it to china as a good will measure.

No need to gift wrap, PLA intelligence has already penetrated the KMT.  

Anyone who thinks it's a breeze to stage a cross channel landing should read the official US Army reports on WWII battles (the Island campaign) and see what kind of logistics is involved.

All the commercial shipping that is coming out of China right now will not help with an invasion or occupation (wrong type of ships, wrong owners, wrong kind of logistics - Can't really send over a company of men or an APC in a container can they?).

bikerthai



Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined exactly 9 years ago today! , 7625 posts, RR: 8
Reply 22, posted (3 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 15582 times:

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 21):
Anyone who thinks it's a breeze to stage a cross channel landing should read the official US Army reports on WWII battles (the Island campaign) and see what kind of logistics is involved.

I do not think it would be a breeze, but I also do not think that if China decides to invade Taiwan tomorrow they cannot do it because they do not have a fleet of amphibious ships, I see that as false comfort. The bulk of US combat vehicles delpoyed to Iraq did not arrive on military ships.

If a missile strike heralds the invasion, airborne forces are deployed, cargo ships with military escorts including submarines would be next to get supplies across. A submarine battle would ensue, depending on who controls the sky the submarines would be on their own.
Yes torpedoes and missiles can be used, China is aware of this, the US does not use wolfpack tactics, so if numbers are an issue how many can get through, how many would you need, how much anti-China is Taiwan actually?

During the Korean conflict, the US never expected overwhelming numbers to be thrown at them, China has numbers, and in any battle, numbers are a factor as well as quality.


User currently offlinemffoda From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1109 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (3 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 15545 times:

Quoting par13del (Reply 22):
I do not think it would be a breeze, but I also do not think that if China decides to invade Taiwan tomorrow they cannot do it because they do not have a fleet of amphibious ships, I see that as false comfort. The bulk of US combat vehicles delpoyed to Iraq did not arrive on military ships.

You are right, that the bulk of US combat vehicles delpoyed to Iraq did not arrive on military ships.

However, You missed the point that they were delivered to friendly ports that were intact and manned by the host country. This would not be the case in Taiwan. As far as their military amphibious capability is concerned, they have the capability to sea-lift less then 25k troops on dedicated transport vessels.

Quoting par13del (Reply 22):
f a missile strike heralds the invasion, airborne forces are deployed, cargo ships with military escorts including submarines would be next to get supplies across. A submarine battle would ensue, depending on who controls the sky the submarines would be on their own.
Yes torpedoes and missiles can be used, China is aware of this, the US does not use wolfpack tactics, so if numbers are an issue how many can get through, how many would you need, how much anti-China is Taiwan actually?

China's Airborne forces face the same obstacles as their sea-lift capability. Dedicated paratroop capable airlift is also lacking, less then a division (US equivalent) total capability.

Before I go any further... We should understand that if any of these invasion scenario's were to take place, there would be a very large military build up prior to... that would Not go unnoticed. That would allow the US to move assets closer.

The Chinese submarine threat is probably their weakest link. There are rumors that every time a Chinese missile boat goes to sea, it has an escort. And from what I here, they are not impressive. One of the jokes I heard, was comparing them to a VW bug with a "just married" sign on the back dragging empty cans down a cobblestone street.  

Wolfpack? A single US Ohio class SSGN is a self contained wolfpack! With 154+ cruise missiles and a full complement of torpedo's to boot... You would not need a massive forward placed fleet.

Quoting par13del (Reply 22):
During the Korean conflict, the US never expected overwhelming numbers to be thrown at them, China has numbers, and in any battle, numbers are a factor as well as quality.

Again, those overwhelming numbers only count if you can get them to the battle! In your Korean example they walked...



harder than woodpecker lips...
User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined exactly 9 years ago today! , 7625 posts, RR: 8
Reply 24, posted (3 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 15466 times:

Quoting mffoda (Reply 23):
Before I go any further... We should understand that if any of these invasion scenario's were to take place, there would be a very large military build up prior to... that would Not go unnoticed. That would allow the US to move assets closer

China sits across the straits, the US would have to move assets to friendly countries in the region who will attempt to use their influence to prevent the conflict, no different than what Turkey did during the build up for Gulf War II.
How fast can China get assets to its coast versus the US across thousands of miles of ocean.

Quoting mffoda (Reply 23):
Wolfpack? A single US Ohio class SSGN is a self contained wolfpack! With 154+ cruise missiles and a full complement of torpedo's to boot... You would not need a massive forward placed fleet.

Yes, but would a SSGN be deployed in the straits or attack subs, much less missiles and torpedos.
China would have to deply its subs with escorts, after all Taiwan also has older sub which must also be dealt with.

It a good idea for a war game simulation, I can think of a few scenarios to throw, so far the distance and the massive SSM's deployed seem to drive all my strategies toward a first strike being the best defense of Taiwan.


25 Post contains images bikerthai : Not a fair comparison . . . but the Brits did relatively well during the Falklands Campaign. LOL . . . Moving a division by land in China may take lo
26 Post contains links mffoda : The US already has considerable assets in the region... Japan, Guam and South Korea Below is from a article dated last month... http://www.thenorthwe
27 Post contains links Devilfish : The Chinese would also want to leave as much intact as possible for their later use. It's the Taiwanese who might sabotage those lest they fall into
28 rwessel : And two Ohio SSGNs would carry almost our entire inventory of anti-ship Tomahawks (unless they've built a bunch of TASMs in the last few years).
29 Post contains images bikerthai : LOL. As we have seen in Libya, a lot of young, highly skilled and educated work force will learn fast the ways or war and become an effective resista
30 Post contains links and images Devilfish : Doubtful the military establishment would readily cede leadership. They have..... http://www.wri-irg.org/node/6311 Quote: "Taiwan's Military Service
31 mffoda : "(unless they've built a bunch of TASMs in the last few years).' As far as I know, all block 4 tomahawk missiles are capable of being used for anti-sh
32 rwessel : I wasn't aware that the standard block 4s had radars, and I can't imagine going optical for the ASM role. I'm not sure why the USN would care to buil
33 mffoda : I didn't say they had radars. Only that the Tomahawk program has been updated and enhanced, as one would expect over all these years of front line se
34 rwessel : Which doesn't really sound like a current capability. Although I certainly think it’s reasonable (and desirable) to have multi-purpose missiles. Bu
35 Post contains images bikerthai : Thanks, sounds like a very passionate person. Perfect leader or a resistance movement. Didn't Raytheon won the SDB-II. From what I hear, that multi-p
36 par13del : In this scenario those are all first strike weapons, something which the US has been keeping out of the hands of Taiwan, anyone believe that the US w
37 rwessel : They can, but if there are a couple of thousand wooden hull landing craft chugging across the Taiwan Strait, there aren't going to be enough torpedoe
38 Post contains links Devilfish : A glimpse at the PLAN's potential..... http://www.sinodefence.com/navy/default.asp
39 bikerthai : Well, at the time, the military force that "captured" Taiwan was recognized as the true government of China. The Red Chinese was not recognized as th
40 Post contains links and images Devilfish : This may be the future option..... http://msnbcmedia3.msn.com/j/MSNBC/C...26_tch_BAE_ship_laser.grid-6x2.jpg Quote: "Like peanut butter and chocolate
41 ThePointblank : The Chinese will need modern amphibious assault assets, and in large quantities. The bulk of the Chinese amphibious assault force is made up of LST's
42 wvsuperhornet : Alot an updated F-16 block 52 or higher would be a handlefull for a chinese pilot in an SU-30 I am not totally sure where everyone thinks that Taiwan
43 trex8 : Bush I approved the original Peace Fenghuang program at this very time in 92 when GD started mumbling about running down the production line in Ft Wor
44 trex8 : Strictly no body captured anything . The Japanese surrendered in 45 to the Republic of China forces and handed back to "Chinese" authority Taiwan whi
45 Oroka : lol, tell that to the 1.17m people living in Hiroshima and the 446 000 in Nagasaki.
46 wvsuperhornet : There is a huge difference beteween today nuclear weapons and yesterdays hydrogen and atoms bombs (not saying one way or another that it was right or
47 Post contains links trex8 : Has congress ever legislated a requirement to sell arms overseas before?? http://www.defense-aerospace.com/art...h-for-f_16c§d-sale-to-taiwan.html
48 Oroka : If the Chinese were smart, then they would have developed low yield nuke that could destroy a large base, or even a city with as little radiation left
49 Post contains images mffoda : You mean like a Reverse Neutron bomb? Smart? ... Maybe because they can't steal the plans off the Internet.
50 Post contains links Bennett123 : http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-14913785 This article raises several issues. Will the F5 have to be retired, (partly linked to the cause
51 Oroka : The Chinese are playing the long game. 25, 50, 100 years... scoff at it all you want. First they copy, then they modify, and before you know it, they
52 Post contains images Zkpilot : so true.
53 Post contains images bikerthai : The politburo is just like any other political creature. They can only think as far as their term in office. In this case it may be a life term . . .
54 trex8 : At some point this was always going to happen. Two aircraft going down like this is probably not due to a mechanical issue though, unless one hit the
55 Oroka : But that is why I think China will prevail where the USSR failed. The Soviets tried to win a money pissing contest with a capitalist country. Didnt w
56 bikerthai : A population getting richer can produce another form of revolution through unintentional consequences . . . One question . . . as we all know a good
57 Post contains images trex8 : ROCAF pilots average @200+ hrs/year. Which is a whole lot more than their PRC counterparts, who don't do much night/poor visibility flying either. RO
58 bikerthai : While new fighters are important, seems to me that the training may be just as crucial in the defense of Taiwan. Hope that doesn't get canned because
59 trex8 : Training is indeed key. Domestic Taiwan politics is more likely to can it though. Just a year or two ago there were issues with appropriations for th
60 Post contains links cosmofly : Obama decided not to sell new F16s, and offers upgrade package. http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/...s/2011/09/16/gIQAmtnJYK_story.html The IDF may
61 Oroka : Dont sell the new fighters, sell them some used... F-35s. Might be a little off spec, might need a new valve or aluminum casting... NO NEW FIGHTERS Bu
62 trex8 : To be honest an upgraded block 20 with AESA will be far better than a off the shelf block 50 except for payload range and no administration - GOP or D
63 Post contains images Oroka : Maybe Israel can sell them a copy of the Lavi plans
64 JoeCanuck : Does Taiwan have nukes? If not, they should seriously think about getting some...or building some. Nothing says, "maybe we should negotiate some more"
65 cosmofly : They did try way back. CIA found out and terminated the program. Now that Taiwan knows that they can no longer depend on US, would they try again? I
66 Post contains images mffoda : Really? I'll bet those POOR ROC refugee's can't wait!! Wow!!! We already have the "New England States"... When can we expect the Canadian, Australian
67 Post contains images cosmofly : Probably somewhat like the Hong Kong merger and the Taiwanese may even have more say in its arm forces. CX is doing pretty well as a Chinese Airline.
68 Post contains links and images Devilfish : Whoa, there!.....whichever, please don't forget that we're just a few miles down south, and RP's northernmost islet is actually closer to Taiwan than
69 Post contains links trex8 : What a sweet 100th anniversary present for the Republic Of China in 19 days,Chung Hua Min Kuo Wan Sui Wan Sui! Aesa radar, jdams, AIM9X and SFW includ
70 Post contains links AirRyan : Upgrades are as worthless as teats on a bull without new engines and zero-timed airframes. This is ignorant and junior-weight politics at best. Taiwan
71 Post contains images mffoda : Speaking of "teats on a bull" Perhaps you missed the overwhelming issue regarding selling arms to the ROC? One, really only need look at past purchas
72 Post contains links AirRyan : The Obama Administration makes the Carter Administration look like George Washington reincarnate - even Jimmy got this one right with the Taiwan Rela
73 Post contains images trex8 : New engines are nice but not absolutely necessary especially if air-ground is not the main task and in many ways the ROCAF has had a engine upgrade p
74 bikerthai : In Jimmy's day, 90% of "Stuff" wasn't made in China and the Chinese did not have the US by the balls with Treasury Bonds. Even Toulouse is beholden t
75 Bennett123 : If the US will not sell uprated F16's, then what chance F35's.
76 trex8 : Same reason MDC made MD80s in Shanghai- cheaper labor and local market! Same reason Boeing drags its feet everytime the ROC MND asks about offsets fo
77 JoeCanuck : Taiwan is just a nasty irritant for the US. They would do nothing more than temporarily 'unlike' China if Taiwan was reduced to radioactive glass. Tai
78 AirRyan : China only holds like 10% of the debt owed by the United States, and they only get a return on their investment when A), they don't go to war with th
79 trex8 : Like where? Mars?? Russia has a very very long border with China and they have no intention of upsetting a major neighbour (who have gotten into real
80 bikerthai : Actually I for one thinks that Russia would more likely sell weapons to Taiwan than any one else. China have not been buying much from Russia anyway
81 Post contains images trex8 : Thats been going on since independence from the Brits and started during periods when PRC/USSR relations were close. USSR has sold nothing ever to RO
82 JoeCanuck : Like the US is the only supplier of arms on the planet?? I don't expect anything...I'm just listing possible sources of aircraft...especially since S
83 Post contains images trex8 : The only one who regularly since 1949 has sold major weapon systems to Taiwan. Except for the French who did one time since 1949 sell some 20 years a
84 Post contains links trex8 : http://www.taiwannews.com.tw/etn/news_content.php?id=1719781 highlights, F16 upgrade will not begin till first batch (71 planes) IDF upgrades complete
85 Post contains links Devilfish : Perhaps they're still waiting for new-build Block 50s?..... http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...usa-lockheed-idUSTRE78S0EV20110929 Quote: "(Reuter
86 Post contains images trex8 : As I've said before BHO will announce a sale in Ft Worth just like GHWB did in 92 - a few months before the election! But seriously if they are getti
87 rolfen : I do not find it mind boggling at all, it has always been Chinese policy, and Taiwan is one potential adversary (on many aspects) sitting just at the
88 Post contains links and images mffoda : Heaven forbid that the US stand up for one of its Allies, or behind the one of the many Treaties it has sighed with them. Maybe, It just an American
89 rolfen : What are you being so aggressive about? I was just saying that this made me think. Do you have any contribution to make regarding that particular poi
90 Post contains images mffoda : That wasn't me being aggressive, that was Jack Nicholson... I thought I did make a point? The US has certain Treaties with Taiwan, that include provi
91 rolfen : Does that have anything to do with me being German? Because if it does, it would be amazing. I have dual citizenship, and only today did I decide to
92 Post contains links and images mffoda : Answer: No! Germany is my favorite destination in Europe (and I am not of German decent). I was stationed there for several years and have been back
93 Post contains images rolfen : It makes sense. Glad to see we agree I love Germany, yet i've never stayed there for more then 3 months at a time.
94 par13del : Russia for many years courted India as an additional "bulwark" againt their communist neighbour China, in recent times India has been looking to the
95 trex8 : There are no foreign treaties with Taiwan requiring US sales of arms. There is US domestic law - Taiwan relations act -requiring the administration t
96 oykie : U.S. Lawmakers will honor the Taiwan Relations Act. The debate is as you say is how to fulfill the requirement to provide Taiwan with arms of a defen
97 Post contains links Devilfish : The ESRC seems to be of the opinion that selling new jets to Taiwan is one way of accomplishing that..... http://defensenews.com/story.php?i=8271348&
98 oykie : Seems like ESRC has good arguments for the purchase to be completed. Interesting article by the way. With Obama announcing troops in Australia and ta
99 Post contains links Devilfish : The good senator from Texas is trying mightily to get the administration to come around to that view..... http://cornyn.senate.gov/public/inde...eb56
100 Post contains images oykie : Were is the "Like" button when you need it?
101 Post contains links Devilfish : Update: So far, only debate about the cost of the upgrades is making the news..... http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...6-upgrade-at-nt110-billion-3
102 Post contains images trex8 : Sept2, that will be the date Obama will announce a sale while on an election campaign trip to Dallas. Just as GHW Bush did 20 years ago a few months a
103 Post contains links Devilfish : Viper vision?..... http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...nnounces-f-16v-development-368323/ Quote: "Lockheed Martin has announced a new variant of t
104 bennett123 : So which F16's can not be updated?.
105 Post contains images trex8 : anything can be done for enough $$$ I would think from an avionics viewpoint any A/Bs pre block 20/MLU or C/Ds pre CCIP. You would have to replace th
106 bennett123 : What about the NATO F16A's?.
107 trex8 : All those which went through the Mid Life Upgrade in the 90s (essentially any in service Dutch, Danish, Belgium, Norwegian (the EPAF four) and I thin
108 ThePointblank : True; The Block 20 designation was reserved for the Taiwanese and the MLU program aircraft. Those can go through the MLU program, which upgraded a mi
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic U.S. To Deny Taiwan New F-16 Fighters
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...
What To Name America's New Spaceship? posted Sun Jan 29 2006 08:14:39 by AerospaceFan
Canada To Get 16 New Transport Airrcraft posted Tue Nov 22 2005 21:07:36 by CO737800
Why Not Just To Build New Space Shuttles posted Sat Jan 1 2011 06:20:55 by flyglobal
President's Visit To CMH 8/16-17 posted Wed Aug 18 2010 17:51:38 by jimbobjoe
UK Confirms Plan To Deploy 'new' Chinooks To Afgha posted Fri Jan 15 2010 08:42:48 by Revelation
Russia Plans To Develop New Strategic Bomber posted Thu Dec 24 2009 14:57:42 by A342
F-16 Adv. As Alternative To F-35 posted Sun Oct 26 2008 10:27:28 by TexL1649
Russia To Build 6 New Aircraft Carriers posted Mon Jul 28 2008 07:04:11 by Mortyman
Belgium To Send 4 F 16's To Afghanistan.. posted Sat Jul 26 2008 07:08:28 by Beaucaire
If New RFP, What Will NG / Eads Change To KC45? posted Tue Jun 24 2008 02:26:04 by Keesje

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format