AirRyan From United States, joined Mar 2005, 2287 posts, RR: 11 Posted (3 years 4 months 1 week ago) and read 14281 times:
Word out of Farnborugh is that Taiwan is considering buying 66 new F-16C/D Block 52+ jets for a price of up to $4B that would be the result of an increase in Taiwan's military budget from 2.4% to 2.85% of their GDP for 2007, as cited from Aviation Week. (Definately wants to be able to protect itself from mainland China.) AvWeek notes how this order would go a long way to help the F-16 line and it's plans of LM back in the states.
DEVILFISH From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 3163 posts, RR: 2 Reply 1, posted (3 years 4 months 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 14274 times:
Taiwan could certainly afford it, and with the current arms buildup and missile tests around the region, that may actually be the prudent thing to do. They are retiring their F5s and have newish F16 models and a few Mirage 2000-5s. The indigenous Ching-Kuo fighters had used up much of previous years' appropriations. Most importantly, this isn't likely to be burdened by export restrictions. I understand they are also in negotiations for up to 12 used but upgraded P-3 Orions.
DL021 From United States, joined May 2004, 11073 posts, RR: 97 Reply 2, posted (3 years 4 months 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 14241 times:
They could probably use them in light of the PLAAF and PLAN buildup with SU-27/30 aircraft.
You gotta know that Dassault is PISSED about not being able to sell them Rafales. They'd do it in a heartbeat if the French government did not cow to the PRC.
AirRyan From United States, joined Mar 2005, 2287 posts, RR: 11 Reply 3, posted (3 years 4 months 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 14203 times:
Quoting DL021 (Reply 2): You gotta know that Dassault is PISSED about not being able to sell them Rafales. They'd do it in a heartbeat if the French government did not cow to the PRC.
France told the PRC they would not sell (anymore) to Tawain?
I like the Rafale and I think it would be a great edge for an Air Force like Taiwan or even Israel. But if I'm going to buy a new-build F-16 in 2006, why not buy the F-16E/F with the AESA radar, better avionics, and outstanding GE-F110-132 engine?!
DL021 From United States, joined May 2004, 11073 posts, RR: 97 Reply 4, posted (3 years 4 months 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 14215 times:
Quoting AirRyan (Reply 3): France told the PRC they would not sell (anymore) to Tawain?
Oh, hell yes. The French concluded a deal with the Taiwanese for frigates and Mirage 2000s in the early 90s and once that was done the PRC applied so much pressure on the French that they reacted the way they always do in pressure situations. They surrendered and declared victory! They sold the PRC weapons systems instead. (Helos, SAM systems, avionics, etc).
Quoting AirRyan (Reply 3): I like the Rafale and I think it would be a great edge for an Air Force like Taiwan or even Israel. But if I'm going to buy a new-build F-16 in 2006, why not buy the F-16E/F with the AESA radar, better avionics, and outstanding GE-F110-132 engine?!
Because the Froggie plane has twin engines (better overwater security) MICA missile system, and a pretty good radar itself. Its faster, more maneuverable (and if you don't think that any fight between the ROC and PRC isn't going to get to guns when the ROCAF runs out of missiles you're kidding yourself) and probably about the same price. The current F-16s are more bomb delivery vehicles than air superiority fighters, as they've been loaded and optimized for that mission.
PADSpot From Germany, joined Jan 2005, 1673 posts, RR: 7 Reply 5, posted (3 years 4 months 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 14189 times:
Quoting DL021 (Reply 2): They could probably use them in light of the PLAAF and PLAN buildup with SU-27/30 aircraft.
An F-16 is not really a match to an Su-30, isn't it? They shoud get something appropriate ... But what? They won't get the Rafale, they won't get the Typhoon and the Gripen is more like a better F-16 ... maybe a "finalized F-15T" with an EASA radar and AIM-120C6s and later Meteors? We'll see ...
AislepathLight From United States, joined Dec 2005, 561 posts, RR: 0 Reply 6, posted (3 years 4 months 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 14182 times:
Quoting PADSpot (Reply 5): An F-16 is not really a match to an Su-30, isn't it? They shoud get something appropriate ... But what?
I actually think F18s fit the situation well. They are AMRAAM buses (or trucks, which ever one you like), can do attack stuff, and can do a little dogfighting if needed . But the Rafale is a much better choice, but they can't get them. Getting F15s would give you that twin engine air superiority, but they are getting a little old.
"We have slain a large dragon, but we now live in a jungle filled with a bewildering variety of poisonous snakes."
AislepathLight From United States, joined Dec 2005, 561 posts, RR: 0 Reply 8, posted (3 years 4 months 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 14174 times:
Quoting DEVILFISH (Reply 7):
The F-15s Korea and Singapore will be getting are substantially updated and are anything but "old."
I am not discribing the airframes as old, but the original technology and its original role are old. While the plane has no real need to be used to combat the Mig 25 and Russia, it now has developed into other roles. The plane now has assumed a similar role as the air superiority to combat the hordes of Chinese planes, rather than Soviet plane's speed. If you are going to make a huge investement, get something that spares are easier to get, such as the F18. I don't think that it is as good of a plane, but when all you want to do is wreak planes with AMRAAMs, it will do the trick.
"We have slain a large dragon, but we now live in a jungle filled with a bewildering variety of poisonous snakes."
DEVILFISH From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 3163 posts, RR: 2 Reply 9, posted (3 years 4 months 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 14160 times:
Quoting AislepathLight (Reply 8): but the original technology and its original role are old.
As I have stated, Korea and Singapore are not buying "orig tech" F-15s but "substantially updated" ones, hence the quotation marks on the word "old."
Quoting AislepathLight (Reply 8): The plane now has assumed a similar role as the air superiority to combat the hordes of Chinese planes, rather than Soviet plane's speed.
I believe the F-15 to be as fine an air superiority fighter then as now, that you could find. And guess what, the PLAAF's frontline fighters are Mig-29s and Su- 30s acknowledged for their aerodynamic qualities.
Quoting AislepathLight (Reply 8): If you are going to make a huge investement, get something that spares are easier to get, such as the F18. I don't think that it is as good of a plane, but when all you want to do is wreak planes with AMRAAMs, it will do the trick.
The main goal of the huge investment is to defend a nation, not to make aircraft mechanics' lives easier (although they contribute hugely to a fleet's readiness.) But spares (as well as armaments, training, sometimes even maintenance and basing) are packaged with new-build buys, and aren't likely to be immediately required. And since you would be faced with a formidable force, it wouldn't be the turkey shoot with AMRAAMs you pictured, so it would be to your advantage to have the best fighter you could for the money.
DL021 From United States, joined May 2004, 11073 posts, RR: 97 Reply 10, posted (3 years 4 months 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 14132 times:
Quoting PADSpot (Reply 5): An F-16 is not really a match to an Su-30, isn't it?
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say they can buy more F-16s than F-15s for the money, and they're better off with a common maintenance airplane with the F-16 than another new type like the SuperBug.
The F-16 can tote up to 6 AIM-120s to even the odds in case of conflict with the numerically superior PRC.
AirRyan From United States, joined Mar 2005, 2287 posts, RR: 11 Reply 11, posted (3 years 4 months 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 14108 times:
Quoting DEVILFISH (Reply 7): Quoting AislepathLight (Reply 6):
F15s would give you that twin engine air superiority, but they are getting a little old.
The F-15s Korea and Singapore will be getting are substantially updated and are anything but "old."
I wish the USAF had those upgraded Strike Eagles.
Quoting DL021 (Reply 10): The F-16 can tote up to 6 AIM-120s to even the odds in case of conflict with the numerically superior PRC.
But the SuperBug can sling up to 12 AMRAAM's, offers AIM-9X and JHMCS, an even better cockpit and especially with the F/A-18F block II and the aft missionized pit, and of course it is also available with an AESA radar (option I guess only available with the Block 60/F-16E/F models?) I guess I can see the Block 52 purchase as some sort of commonality, and I wouldn't order my F-16E/F's with CFT's anyways as I wouldn't use them for long-range strikes. I sometimes wonder if Boeing even has any Super Hornet salesman but maybe the price advantage of a block 52 F-16 was what won the day anyways.
DEVILFISH From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 3163 posts, RR: 2 Reply 13, posted (3 years 4 months 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 14073 times:
Maybe I confused the airshow for the real thing, but I was reading Combat Aircraft and FI just last week and I seem to recall MiG-29 photos accompanying an article. Now I'm uncertain if those were India's MiGs.
AirRyan From United States, joined Mar 2005, 2287 posts, RR: 11 Reply 15, posted (3 years 4 months 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 13996 times:
If France wasn't going to offer them Dassault, could they have gone with Euro's? I was reading where a Royal Air Force pilot recently returned from an exchange program where he was flying F-16's with the USAF and upon his arrival back to the RAF, he said he thought the F-16 was the perfect "trainer" for the EF! haha... still - I'd went with Super Hornets and their extra hardpoints over F-16's at this point in the game.
PADSpot From Germany, joined Jan 2005, 1673 posts, RR: 7 Reply 16, posted (3 years 4 months 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 13988 times:
Quoting AirRyan (Reply 15): If France wasn't going to offer them Dassault, could they have gone with Euro's?
They won't get Rafale, so they won't get the Typhoon. Esspecially Germany is going for a "One-China-Policy". No way they are going to allow the export of Typhoon to Taiwan. Finally it just puts too much of EU's business in Mainland China at risk ..
AirRyan From United States, joined Mar 2005, 2287 posts, RR: 11 Reply 17, posted (3 years 4 months 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 13977 times:
Quoting PADSpot (Reply 16): Esspecially Germany is going for a "One-China-Policy".
Taiwan just held military wargames demonstrating their ability to defend themselves, and as the 2008 Olympics near the time for Taiwan to officially declare their independance only gets better. So IF China was to attack Taiwan over the issue, and the US is officially committed to defending Taiwan via treaty, you mean to tell me France and Germany are going to back the PRC in a shooting war against the US, Taiwan, and likely the Brits? With some of the clients France has, I find it highly hypocritical that they would choose to side with the PRC over Taiwan.
DEVILFISH From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 3163 posts, RR: 2 Reply 18, posted (3 years 4 months 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 13973 times:
Quoting PADSpot (Reply 16): Finally it just puts too much of EU's business in Mainland China at risk ..
Quoting AirRyan (Reply 17): With some of the clients France has, I find it highly hypocritical that they would choose to side with the PRC over Taiwan.
This just goes to show how economic clout is effectively applied to attain political ends. France is not confused on which side its bread is buttered.
PADSpot From Germany, joined Jan 2005, 1673 posts, RR: 7 Reply 19, posted (3 years 4 months 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 13961 times:
Quoting AirRyan (Reply 17): and as the 2008 Olympics near the time for Taiwan to officially declare their independance only gets better.
China already announced what the result would be ... immediate war. No matter whether they hosts the Olympics or not. Taipei won't be that stupid.
Quoting AirRyan (Reply 17): So IF China was to attack Taiwan over the issue, and the US is officially committed to defending Taiwan via treaty, you mean to tell me France and Germany are going to back the PRC in a shooting war against the US, Taiwan, and likely the Brits?
Second: The Taiwan/US Defense treaty was terminated by the US in 1980 as part of their interpretation of a One-China-Policy.
Neither does the sale of airplanes imply any defense treaty, nor is any western country interested in getting militarily involved in that conflict. France and Germany just do not take side for Taiwan or China and consequently won't sell any military equipment to any of the both (anymore, I should say). The EU has even an embargo in place against Mainland China as a result of the Tienanmen Massacre in 1989. Military sales from the EU to Mainland China are hypothetical anyway.
Your suggestion that NATO allies (!!!) could get into an armed conflict with each other over the China-issue is so far-fetched and beyond good and evil that I forbear from commenting it ... never read such a on-sense.
AirRyan From United States, joined Mar 2005, 2287 posts, RR: 11 Reply 20, posted (3 years 4 months 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 13945 times:
Quoting PADSpot (Reply 19): China already announced what the result would be ... immediate war. No matter whether they hosts the Olympics or not. Taipei won't be that stupid.
Nonsense - China isn't going to flush the multiple billions of money they have invested in the 2008 Olympics on a shooting match with Taiwan with the US sworn to protect them, China knows where their bread is buttered. If China attacks Taiwan, even if Taiwan declared their independance and that was why China attacked, the US would be obligated to come to the aid of Taiwan - minus the semantics, a Chinese attack on Taiwan is an attack on the United States.
Quoting PADSpot (Reply 19): Your suggestion that NATO allies (!!!) could get into an armed conflict with each other over the China-issue is so far-fetched and beyond good and evil that I forbear from commenting it ... never read such a on-sense.
Considering that both North Korea and Iran are members of the UN, I was just trying to gauge the extent of your comments. I agree, a cold day in hell before France/Germany does anything against the US.
PADSpot From Germany, joined Jan 2005, 1673 posts, RR: 7 Reply 21, posted (3 years 4 months 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 13905 times:
Quoting AirRyan (Reply 20): Nonsense - China isn't going to flush the multiple billions of money they have invested in the 2008 Olympics on a shooting match with Taiwan with the US sworn to protect them, China knows where their bread is buttered. If China attacks Taiwan, even if Taiwan declared their independance and that was why China attacked, the US would be obligated to come to the aid of Taiwan - minus the semantics, a Chinese attack on Taiwan is an attack on the United States.
First: The financial or even publicity effect of the Olympics is nothing opposed to the meaning and importance the PRC attributes to the Taiwan matter. If Taiwan declares indendepence and comes through with it then ten other provinces in Mainland China are already in the row to do the same. Forget the Olympics! That's child's play in that context ... It is finally about the integrity of the PRC, nothing less. Olympics are just all sunshine and lollipops ...
Second (and i say again): THERE IS NO TREATY OR OBLIGATION FOR THE US TO PROTECT TAIWAN. Stop that smattering and get your facts about US-Taiwan relations straight.
In fact US and Taiwanese alliance ended on October 25th in 1971, when the US let pass UN resolution 2758 that dismissed Taiwan form the United Nations and therewith (more or less) from the list of internationally accepted countries. However the US/Taiwan defense treaty endured until 1980 when it was terminated by the US.
What you say is non-sense. If an attack on Taiwan would imply an attack on the US, then this would be World War III. Nobody would engage in something that stupid for a small Island called Taiwan 10000km away from home. Cold war is over ... get it finally.
The US are Taiwan's prime weapon supplier and will probably continue to be that in future. But there is nothing more. In fact the PRC has intervened several times when Taiwan tried to buy systems that were deemed too sophisticated. Then these transfers finally did not take place as there are even loose agreesments ("communiques") from 1982 between the PRC and the US about not selling arms to Taiwan
Migfan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 22, posted (3 years 4 months 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 13891 times:
Quoting DEVILFISH (Reply 13): I seem to recall MiG-29 photos accompanying an article. Now I'm uncertain if those were India's MiGs.
I am 99.99% sure that the PLAAF does not have Mig-29s. A while back they opted for Su-27s instead, becoming the first export customer for the type. As far as I know they are tooling to start license production as the J-11 or J-12 (I forget).
An indigenous fighter will take the light weight requirement. Either the JF-1 that they are building with Pakistan or the J-10.
AirRyan From United States, joined Mar 2005, 2287 posts, RR: 11 Reply 23, posted (3 years 4 months 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 13865 times:
Quoting PADSpot (Reply 21): If Taiwan declares indendepence and comes through with it then ten other provinces in Mainland China are already in the row to do the same.
Sounds like a civil war - guess that commie bullshat isn't working, too well is it?
Quoting PADSpot (Reply 21): Forget the Olympics! That's child's play in that context ... It is finally about the integrity of the PRC, nothing less. Olympics are just all sunshine and lollipops ...
End result the same - the commie government still loses.
Quoting PADSpot (Reply 21): Second (and i say again): THERE IS NO TREATY OR OBLIGATION FOR THE US TO PROTECT TAIWAN. Stop that smattering and get your facts about US-Taiwan relations straight.
I don't know what your clamoring about but the Bush administration has set repeatedly they would defend Taiwan if China attacked. Call that whatever you will, but your absolutely wrong if you think China would attack Taiwan and the US would just watch (of course of another Klinton administration gets into office, all bets are off.)
Quoting PADSpot (Reply 21): What you say is non-sense. If an attack on Taiwan would imply an attack on the US, then this would be World War III. Nobody would engage in something that stupid for a small Island called Taiwan 10000km away from home. Cold war is over ... get it finally.
The US had been every bit as clear on this as the Chinese have - considering that the US has gone to the aid of Korea and Vietnam, you'd have to say the US has a track record backing up what they say.
Quoting PADSpot (Reply 21): The US are Taiwan's prime weapon supplier and will probably continue to be that in future. But there is nothing more. In fact the PRC has intervened several times when Taiwan tried to buy systems that were deemed too sophisticated. Then these transfers finally did not take place as there are even loose agreesments ("communiques") from 1982 between the PRC and the US about not selling arms to Taiwan
I believe the real reason why AEGIS cruisers did not go to Taiwan was because of price. China is protesting the current F-16 deal right now to Bush, but do you think Bush is going to back down on China's request?
Quote: China has protested to the United States for the reported planned sale of 66 F-16 fighter jets to Taiwan, the Foreign Ministry said on Friday.
Bush "is opposed to any attempts to change the status quo across the Taiwan Straits." Ideally what that will mean is the US continues to make money off of Taiwan's defense and nothing else happens. The US does not encourage Taiwan to declare independance, so as to appease the PRC - but they make it abundantly clear that any strike on Taiwan by China will not be left to wait for deliberation by the UN. Interpret it as you may but it appears as though we have differences of opinion on the matter.
Quote: During Guo's meeting with US President George W. Bush on Thursday, Bush said the US position on the Taiwan issue is very clear and the US government will continue to adhere to the three joint communiques between the United States and China and is opposed to any attempts to change the status quo across the Taiwan Straits.
RAPCON From Puerto Rico, joined Jul 2006, 671 posts, RR: 0 Reply 24, posted (3 years 4 months 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 13849 times:
Quoting DEVILFISH (Reply 18): This just goes to show how economic clout is effectively applied to attain political ends. France is not confused on which side its bread is buttered.
...and France and the Euro's do not have the cojones to take on the PRC (or anyone else). The US does, and it just gave them the finger with the sale to Taiwan.
MODS CAN'T STOP ME....THEY CAN ONLY HOPE TO CONTAIN ME!!!
PADSpot From Germany, joined Jan 2005, 1673 posts, RR: 7 Reply 25, posted (3 years 4 months 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 13842 times:
@AirRyan: Frankly said it seems that your political world outlook got stuck somewhere between Joseph McCarthy and the early Ronald Reagan. I don't think it makes any sense to further discuss with you here. It became off-topic anyway ...
Quoting RAPCON (Reply 24): ..and France and the Euro's do not have the cojones to take on the PRC (or anyone else). The US does, and it just gave them the finger with the sale to Taiwan.
It has nothing to do with having balls or not. Trade between the EU and China is is roughly 300 Billion $ and rising. We're just better off if that region is calm and stable. A war between Taiwan and China would have no advantage for anyone. Not even for the US ...
26 DEVILFISH: Stupid of me. The article was actually about Flankers! Dealt with the UBTs, SKs and MKKs for China, SKs and MKIs for India and Su-30s for both, and a
27 DEVILFISH: Update: Flightglobal reports that this F-16 buy has hit a snag. Apparently, export authorization wouldn't be given unless a previously agreed buy pack
28 STT757: Taiwan needs the P-3s and Patriot PACIIIs as much as the F-16s, the likely first attack by the PRC would be by ballistic missiles and Submarines more
29 DEVILFISH: Update: The Dec 06 issue of Air International reported that this F-16 deal might finally move forward as the previous package for 12 P-3Cs and PAC3 w
30 DL021: So, for clarity here, what you are saying is that we should refuse to assist a democracy in defending itself because the tyranny that threatens it is
31 Cloudy: Regardless of the morality of the issue - there is the issue of fabs. I am referring to the large and expensive plants that make make silicon chips. T
32 Sebolino: LOL You have a very bad knowledge of this story (as well as the history). The deal was done after China finally lifted its veto to this operation. So
33 PADSpot: That's part of the reason why I did not respond to it Tyranny/democracy ... black/white ... good/evil ... the US as the benevolent savior that brings
34 Trex8: actually France got nothing more than a slight wrist slap from Beijing, they closed one counsulate ? Guangzhou and there were some large infrastructu
35 PADSpot: Add France and Germany to that list ... although Germany has become much more careful during the last 15-20 years. During the 60ies, 70ies and early
36 Par13del: The F-16's are a good buy for Taiwan 1. It is a 9g light weight fighter, quick off the draw, Taiwan is pretty close to China, it does not need much le
37 Cloudy: Not for very long, I am afraid. We would fight hard to prevent China from getting Taiwan but if they successfully invaded, we would probably seek an
38 Trex8: the real issue is do the Taiwanese have the stomach to fight to the end against the PLA? When 100000 of their compatriots are already living in Shangh
39 DEVILFISH: Update: AIT Director scores delayed PAC III, P-3C and submarine order funding..... http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi...AX8AAAEAAH7sfQYAAAAC&modele=
40 DEVILFISH: And jeopardize, it did - decision on request delayed till 2008..... http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...heed-martin-f-16-fighter-deal.html Quote: "
41 AirRyan: I'd rather buy French Rafales at this point, anyways; and France needs an export customer for the Rafale bad - sounds like a win-win for both parties
42 Ozair: But the article talks about half of the Taiwanese fleet of Mirage 2000s being grounded due to lack of spares, if you had some cash to buy new aircraf
43 Atmx2000: France is less likely to try and upset the Chinese, and there is the little issue of the bribes that France paid to win a deal for frigates in the 90
44 DEVILFISH: But as pointed out in Reply 34,..... It seems France had other substantial business interests in the PROC that they did not want to compromise? Might
45 PADSpot: There were plans to sell them a couple of submarines, but AFAIK that did not concretized... the funny thing is that one of the largest business partn
46 DEVILFISH: Well, assuming that Hongkong's and Macau's percentages could well be China's, Taiwan's 7% share is indeed remarkable and would compel them to tread c
47 DeltaGuy: Something we need to keep in mind when we're considering their stupid tanker. DeltaGuy
48 DEVILFISH: Congress notified of possible sale. Could this be the deal maker?..... http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi...M38AAAEAABQelMYAAAAE&modele=jdc_34 Quote
49 DEVILFISH: Conflicting signals being aired..... http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi...M38AAAEAABQelMYAAAAE&modele=jdc_34 Quote: "PARIS --- The U.S.-Taiwan Busin
50 Trex8: and your point is what considering they were willing to sell Mirage 2000s to Taiwan in the early 90s before the US agreed to sell F16s (some would ev
Sponsor Message: 
From United States, joined Mar 2005, 2287 posts, 
From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 3163 posts, 
From Germany, joined Jan 2005, 1673 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Puerto Rico, joined Jul 2006, 671 posts, 
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
