Defence of Taiwan

koxinga

Well-Known Member
While I don't have actual data, on a personal level (having worked there and with city officials), the China pre XJP was certainly more "freewheeling". When XJP came to power and started his anti corruption campaign, the outright fear of being caught up in it was palatable among the people I spoke with. It does not mean corruption is gone, it just means that it has gotten more discrete. How that affects the PLA, I have no idea.

On the second issue of motivation, my opinion is they (down to the grunts) would be more motivated than Russians.

Reunification by force has always been an open issue that even the average Chinese citizen is aware of and the propaganda on this being the "historical mission" of the Chinese people is so strong that even overseas Chineses have been affected.

There are plenty of hardcore views especially among the older generation of overseas Chinese (not born in China, perhaps never even set foot there) that support the invasion. This is sold from an ethnocentric view (people with Chinese blood must support China) as opposed to ideological.
 

STURM

Well-Known Member
Indeed when comparisons are made between Russia and the Ukraine it's often overlooked at how more motivated and politically indoctrinated the average PLA nan would be compared to his Russian counterpart. Taiwan is something the average PLA man is well acquainted with; something he's been hearing for decades and is embedded in his mindset/psyche.

On corruption I have no data or sources but I'd hazard a guess by saying it's not as prevalent as in Russia and might not have a direct bearing on how the PLA would perform. It would be a mistake to assume that with Russia; corruption will hinder the ability of the PLA to perform.
 

OPSSG

Super Moderator
Staff member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #383
A 2035 to 2040 Sunset for Ex Starlight?

1. As Tsai’s successor, VP William Lai Ching-te is even more ideologically wedded to the idea of independence.

(a) Once Tsai steps down at the next election, we will have a gray rhino (a 2-ton animal, with a scary horn) that is charging at the SAF if it does not look for more options to train elsewhere besides Taiwan. Currently, Taiwan has downsized its ground forces to the point of incredulity. The ROC Army is down to around 150,000 soldiers, far less than the 215,000 troops the Taiwanese MND says it needs.​
(b) There is no point in pointing out the logical or reasonable to Taiwan’s DPP online army — that Taiwan is under investing in the ROC Army.​
2. It seems Taiwan’s attitude is — why buy, when you can copy or engage in theft.
(a) In Feb 2021, Up Media reported that NCSIST bought Mk 41 VLS from Lockheed Martin & did some reverse engineering to develop its own VLS technology. Taiwan can only get to burn a bridge once — congrats to NCSIST for your IP theft.​
(b) From the perspective of the Korean police, the Taiwan International Shipbuilding Corporation is under suspicion of paying significant bribes to get access to classified boat designs and is engaging in technology theft. A blueprint for a Korean-made submarine was leaked to Taiwan, and 5 people involved were interviewed; and at least 10 people from Daewoo Shipbuilding changed jobs to ‘Company A’, which is likely to be under the common control of directors or shadow directors in Taiwan.​

3. DPP supporters are proud of a US$1.37 billion modernisation of the Kang Ding class but they don’t realise that after spending all this money, it will be much less capable than the RSN’s Formidable class. Unlike Taiwan, Singapore’s confidence in protecting our SLOCs is due to our procedural & human interoperability with Australian and American forces in multi-domain ops. The Chinese proverb, 麻雀虽小,五脏俱全 ('sparrow is small, but it’s 5 organs are complete') applies to SAF’s quad-service integration.
(a) The DPP also ignore a stain on Taiwanese character that cannot be bleached out by time; as there are multiple incidents of Taiwanese pilots defecting with their aircraft to mainland China and these include on 8 Aug 1981, flying a F-5F, MAJ Huang Zhicheng landing at Fuzhou, & on 11 Feb 1989, flying a F-5E, by LTC Lin Xianshun.​
(b) Taiwanese politicians like to talk about anti-corruption but they bribe the Koreans to get classified technology and make no progress on reforming their own corrupt system. They like to talk about the economic progress but they can’t complete with Singapore’s Govt policies to foster economic competitiveness.​
(c) President Tsai’s DPP has approved on more money for ROC’s defence than the Singapore Govt spends on the SAF. But ROC seems to spend the money poorly and often buys obsolete weapons (or weapons unsuited for their threat matrix). This is why I say, Taipei is Kabul on steroids. More military muscle but ultimately dishonest and weak minded.​

4. The SAF has been conducting incognito military training in Taiwan under Exercise Starlight for more than two generations — we understand Taiwan’s terrain. BTW, our troops do not wear their usual uniforms (to blend in). Part of the solution to gaining more options for training areas other than Taiwan are, as follows:
One, setting up of a Singapore Fighter Training Detachment at Andersen Air Force Base in Guam under a Dec 2019 MOU with the US. This fighter training presence will begin around 2029; and consist of approximately a squadron of aircraft, associated personnel, and include the construction of hangars, aprons, and support facilities for the detachment footprint.​
Two, Singapore’s A$2.25 billion investment in Australia to develop military training areas. This investment will enable the SAF to reduce its training footprint in Taiwan by 2029; & accommodate up to 14,000 troops in Australia for training (up fm 6,000 per year).​

5. The Australia-Singapore Treaty on Military Training & Training Area Development (Treaty on MT&AD) signed on 23 Mar 2020, is intended to help us avoid the Gray Rhino of Taiwan. Under the Treaty on MT&AD, facilities will be expanded by 2024 for SWBTA & 2028 for the GVTA. The Combined Arms Air-Land Ranges currently being developed will allow the Singapore Army and the RSAF to train together with tanks, infantry fighting vehicles, drones, artillery and other combined arms platforms.

6. The coming period of tension to the 2024 Presidential Election in Taiwan may be bumpy. It will be important for American & Chinese officials to remain in direct contact; & for each side to exercise discipline, so as to focus on preserving peace & stability in Taiwan Strait.

7. Even in a worse-case 2030 scenario, an invasion of Taiwan is a risky gamble for Xi. The inherent advantages of the Taiwan’s geography & current military tech available for sale to Taiwan means that if the Taiwanese willed it, they could make their island an impenetrable fortress. But there is the catch. The Taiwanese must will it. There should be a sense of a national crisis for under prepared Taiwan, in the wake of Pelosi’s visit along with Chinese civilians & the PLA ramping up of hostilities — instead we just see Taiwanese propaganda.

8. DPP is supposed to unite the Taiwanese against PLA aggression but they didn't do anything a logical person is expected to do except brainwash Taiwan into greater complacency & attempt to silence all criticism on their lack of preparedness.

9. The above slogan is not a a substitute for having a 60 day supply of ammo.

10. The DPP online army seeks to clarify information unfavorable to the DPP & "1450" is the code name. Any news that was not conducive to the DPP authorities would be classified as "false news" by 1450 groups or face trolling by their supporters. But the truth is easy to see. But my posts here are not as effective as Paul Huang’s below (at illustrating the dysfunctional culture of ‘service’ in Taiwan). At an institutional level, the ROC Army is just going through the motions with the ‘reserves’ they call up for training — instead of doing it properly.
 
Last edited:

koxinga

Well-Known Member
Indeed when comparisons are made between Russia and the Ukraine it's often overlooked at how more motivated and politically indoctrinated the average PLA nan would be compared to his Russian counterpart. Taiwan is something the average PLA man is well acquainted with; something he's been hearing for decades and is embedded in his mindset/psyche.
What most Western observers missed is the amount of pro-Chinese propoganda (which is in Mandarin) that has fed into the the Sinoverse. The message of the propoganda is framed from an ethnocentric perspective. (Those of Chinese ethnicity has an obligation to support China on this historical mission of reunification, and it is a giant Western conspiracy to contain China) ; It is not framed as contest between an free system versus an authoritarian system, which is the typical western perspective.

That appeal is very strong, especially among the older generation of overseas Chinese with (a) limited language ability to access alternative view points in English, (b) are living in societies which they are minorities and have experienced some form of discrimination. During Pelosi's visit, I know a number of these older, overseas Chinese folks who were railing against it, spounting CCP catch-lines.

And these are overseas Chinese, that may not even have a single direct connection to China.

On corruption I have no data or sources but I'd hazard a guess by saying it's not as prevalent as in Russia and might not have a direct bearing on how the PLA would perform. It would be a mistake to assume that with Russia; corruption will hinder the ability of the PLA to perform.
It would be a mistake to expect the next war/enemy to fail in the same way. That goes for any country.
 

STURM

Well-Known Member
During Pelosi's visit, I know a number of these older, overseas Chinese folks who were railing against it, spounting CCP catch-lines.
indeed. A lot of overseas Chinese still adopt the "U.S. is trying to prevent the growth China", "will use Taiwan as a pretext to wage war on China"' and "China is just responding to U.S. provocation" narrative. Ultimately however it's the view of China's citizens which matter and which China's rulers are concerned about.

On the Pelosi visit my personal stance is that Taiwan should be free to host any visitor it wants but by the same token what did the visit actually achieve?
.
It would be a mistake to expect the next war/enemy to fail in the same way. That goes for any country.
It's human nature to adopt views that fit into personal narratives and to at times assume things and indulge in over confidence and hubris. With regards to China many still repeat "the China is good but not good enough", "the PLA has not fought a war since 1979", "the PLA will never be able to cross the Taiwan Straits and "no matter how powerful the PLA is the U.S. and its allies will ultimately prevail" narrative.

All this might be true or it might not. The PLA might not be as experienced and skilled as the U.S. and its allies but this doesn't mean it will lose militarily. Attempting an amphibious assault fraught with risks and challenges but it's not written in stone that the PLA will fail.
 

STURM

Well-Known Member

Sanctions are being considered to deter the Chinese from invading. Sounds great in principle and on paper but will it have the intended results or will it result in additionally tensions with an undeterred China? It also remains to be seen if various countries in the region go along with it.

"In both cases, the idea is to adopt sanctions beyond measures already taken in the West to restrict some trade and investment with China in sensitive technologies like computer chips and telecoms equipment."

"The sources did not provide details of what is being considered, but the notion of sanctions on the world’s second-largest economy and one of the global supply chain’s biggest links raises questions of feasibility.

“The potential imposition of sanctions on China is a far more complex exercise than sanctions on Russia, given US and allies’ extensive entanglement with the Chinese economy,” said Nazak Nikakhtar, a former senior US Commerce Department official
"
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro

Sanctions are being considered to deter the Chinese from invading. Sounds great in principle and on paper but will it have the intended results or will it result in additionally tensions with an undeterred China? It also remains to be seen if various countries in the region go along with it.

"In both cases, the idea is to adopt sanctions beyond measures already taken in the West to restrict some trade and investment with China in sensitive technologies like computer chips and telecoms equipment."

"The sources did not provide details of what is being considered, but the notion of sanctions on the world’s second-largest economy and one of the global supply chain’s biggest links raises questions of feasibility.

“The potential imposition of sanctions on China is a far more complex exercise than sanctions on Russia, given US and allies’ extensive entanglement with the Chinese economy,” said Nazak Nikakhtar, a former senior US Commerce Department official
"
It will be interesting because sanctions are the one thing that the CCP do fear, especially if the sanctions are targeted against both senior party members and what it considers strategically important items such as computer chips, dual use technology etc.
 

STURM

Well-Known Member
Ideally there would be a softening period enabling the PLA to conduct a air and sea campaign to degrade Taiwan's defences before launching an amphibious assault but the PLA doesn't have that luxury. It has to act fast because time isn't on its side: things get somewhat complicated as American assets start arriving.

Actual sea lift as we know is the least of the PLA's worries. In addition to PLAN assets there is a large commercial fleet which can be utilised.
 
Last edited:

Hari Sud

New Member
All Chinese commands were tested during Nancy Pelosi visit to Taiwan. Rather China mounted an all out attack (an exercise) to capture Taiwan. They failed. Moreover Chinese can do this stupidity when Taiwan was all alone, but not anymore. Now American help has arrived. All Chinese military maneuvers have been rendered useless. Also during Chinese exercise, they gave away too many secrets of their missiles, naval fleet and tactics, hence during a real fight the Chinese will fail again.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
All Chinese commands were tested during Nancy Pelosi visit to Taiwan. Rather China mounted an all out attack (an exercise) to capture Taiwan. They failed. Moreover Chinese can do this stupidity when Taiwan was all alone, but not anymore. Now American help has arrived. All Chinese military maneuvers have been rendered useless. Also during Chinese exercise, they gave away too many secrets of their missiles, naval fleet and tactics, hence during a real fight the Chinese will fail again.
Welcome to the Forum.

Do you have some sources for your claims? We have a requirement that any claims be supported by sources that are reliable and verifiable. Please read the rules which clarify what is acceptable what isn't.
 

Cooch

Active Member
Ideally there would be a softening period enabling the PLA to conduct a air and sea campaign to degrade Taiwan's defences
That sounds very like a “We hope Taiwan will run out of anti-ship missiles before we run out of ships”, kind of thing.... especially as your transports are fairly large, soft targets full of very valuable cargo
I’d also presume that it’s easier to hide a missile in a hole in a rock, than it is to hide a ship on an ocean.

it seems to me that an island is far less easy to sink than ships trying to get to it, and - as the Russians are currently learning - air superiority doesn’t work as well as you’d hope when your opponent still has stocks of effective missiles.

No doubt the PLA is thinking about this. Hard. Maybe they will have a solution , or think they have, by the time they decide to put it to the test.
 

STURM

Well-Known Member
That sounds very like a “We hope Taiwan will run out of anti-ship missiles before we run out of ships”, kind of thing....
I think it's more like "we degrade Taiwan's capabilities as best we can before actually embarking on an amphib assault and also see if we can gain anything politically". For the PLA the problem with and air and sea campaign is that it gives others time to deploy the needed assets to the region/area.

the Russians are currently learning - air superiority doesn’t work as well as you’d hope when your opponent still has stocks of effective missiles.
That's why the PLA might attempt to degrade Taiwan's air force and GBAD first. We also need to keep in mind that the PLAAF might only initially seek to achieve air superiority over the straits and beacheads.

What the Ukranians are currently doing is what the Serbs did in 1999; albeit on a smaller scale and less effectively; a defence in depth with a GBAD in being; one that always poses a level of threat. We must also not overlook that the Russians have also been able to prevent the Ukrainians from effectively deploying air power; both sides have achieved air denial to an extent; even if it's limited in certain areas.
 

Musashi_kenshin

Well-Known Member
Recently, Elbridge Colby, Paul Huang, Yun Sun & LTC (retired) James Huang gave a talk on the defence of Taiwan that is worth watching. A thought-provoking panel on Taiwanese lack of defence readiness at multiple levels.
Thanks for the video, OPSSG, I had a look at it.

For me the most thoughtful and interesting speaker was Yun Sun, who talked about things like the political calculations the CCP needs to make, as well as the usually unanswered question as to what happens afterwards if Taiwan is defeated. (I also liked how she took notes during the questions at the end.) If we rule out an immediate capitulation, she posited the position that Taiwan would be in ruins.

I had to ask myself, in that situation would China really put in $hundreds of billions, potentially $trillions, in reconstruction funds? No one else would, because it would be rewarding China for its aggression. If the CCP didn't do that, the island could become a hotbed of insurrection and rebellion. If it did, the money would have to come from the mainland, which would anger Chinese who lost out.

I thought that whilst Paul Huang might have had an argument about the need for reforms within the Taiwanese military, he undermined his own case by mocking the Taiwanese armed forces for projects like the Yushan class LPD. I think most objective individuals would accept that Taiwan needs some sort of new amphibious capability, otherwise it would be unable to supply outlying islands in a grey-zone conflict. He also seemed to ignore the Tuo Chiang class corvette, which is the sort of affordable naval project Taiwan should be focusing on instead of the larger frigate that has now been put on the back burner. He also made an invalid comparison between the cost of a Javelin missile and a Chinese ATGM, when the US has also sold cheaper TOW missiles.

James Huang essentially was making the same points as Paul Huang, albeit he made it in a more tighly-focused way. If I'd been present, I'd probably have asked him a question about Taiwanese military reforms instead of P.H.

Elbridge Colby didn't seem to have anything really useful to say other than talking about hypothetical scenarios. But his (maybe not entirely serious) point about threatening sanctions against Taiwan was something that tweaked my attention. Not because I agree with him but because I think it may reflect the attitudes of some influential people in the US about Taiwan.

He forgets that, whether we want to acknowledge or not, Taiwan is the victim here. It was sold out by the developed world because it was strategically and economically convenient, and it's been threatened with annihilation by its neighbour for the last 70+ years. It's only fairly recently that the developed world is interested in Taiwan again, and more often than not that's because of semiconductors with calls to "please give us more" rather than offering anything in return other than payment. You can't expect a country to listen intently to what you have to say if you've treated it like a plague victim in public for more than half a century.

Yun Sun, my favourite speaker, touched upon this topic when she mentioned how unhelpful for Taiwan the inconsistent messaging from the US is. I would observe that just because the US has a "I can't believe it's not an ambassador" representative to Taiwan doesn't mean that there's a clear means of communication between the US and Taiwanese governments. They can exchange memos but not necessarily have deep discussions of the sort that changes policy. And can anyone say that most of the recent US representatives to Taiwan have actually been people of real character and influence, rather than just postmen for the State Department? I might be unfair there, but even full ambassadors can be underwhelming. I would be very surprised if the White House had secretly been sending its best people to Taiwan. It's possible they were technically competent, but how often were they able to get a meaningful policy change out of Taipei on things that matter?

So I think the US needs to ditch its have-cake-and-eat-it policy regarding Taiwan relations. Either accept that the hands-off diplomatic policy with Taiwan means that frequently it's going to do its own thing even if you'd prefer it would make significant changes, or find a way to have meaningful, high-level dialogue at not just the economic but also military and political levels. I doubt that Nanci Pelosi had any message from Joe Biden about Taiwan needing to make military changes. Sure, the sort of thing I'm talking about may cause China to take some action in response, but as I said the US needs to decide what the priority is.
 
Last edited:

Cooch

Active Member
Sturm..
With respect, I’m not sure that you are taking into account the cost of “degrading” the Taiwanese defence.
How many ships and aircraft are the PLA/N prepared to lose in the process?
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
Sturm..
With respect, I’m not sure that you are taking into account the cost of “degrading” the Taiwanese defence.
How many ships and aircraft are the PLA/N prepared to lose in the process?
I would think most of the degrading would be done by missiles, less expensive than ships and jets. The problem with ongoing degradation of Taiwan’s defences as opposed to an immediate actual invasion is it provides a longer window for allied forces to prepare and counter any eventual Chinese amphibious assault.
 

Cooch

Active Member
I would think most of the degrading would be done by missiles, less expensive than ships and jets. The problem with ongoing degradation of Taiwan’s defences as opposed to an immediate actual invasion is it provides a longer window for allied forces to prepare and counter any eventual Chinese amphibious assault.
John...
“If they are in range, so are you”.

To be clear, I do not know the relative strengths and weaknesses of the respective weapons systems.
I assume that both sides have ADS.
But some things are pretty universal. An attacker in the open tends to be more vulnerable than a defender in a foxhole. As soon as the PLA/N start launching rockets against Taiwan, they greenlight a Taiwanese response against their ports, loading facilities and coastal bases.
The Taiwanese have access to satellite intel. It’s very hard to hide an entire invasion fleet, or the movements of troops and materiel required to fill it. Ports and bases are hard to hide, easy to hit and fairly soft.
The Taiwanese could make their island such an expensive proposition to take, that doing so would leave very little worth the taking.
 

Cooch

Active Member
Can anyone point to a successful amphibious landing against a well-fortified shoreline, that did not involve an extensive preparatory bombardment?

By air, as well as from the sea?
 

T.C.P

Well-Known Member
John...
“If they are in range, so are you”.

To be clear, I do not know the relative strengths and weaknesses of the respective weapons systems.
I assume that both sides have ADS.
But some things are pretty universal. An attacker in the open tends to be more vulnerable than a defender in a foxhole. As soon as the PLA/N start launching rockets against Taiwan, they greenlight a Taiwanese response against their ports, loading facilities and coastal bases.
The Taiwanese have access to satellite intel. It’s very hard to hide an entire invasion fleet, or the movements of troops and materiel required to fill it. Ports and bases are hard to hide, easy to hit and fairly soft.
The Taiwanese could make their island such an expensive proposition to take, that doing so would leave very little worth the taking.
Does Taiwan have many systems that can hit the Chinese shoreline? China on the other hand has significant numbers of missiles with long enough range to hit Taiwan. No one is saying that China can invade Taiwan or attempt a cross straight amphibious assault without loss, but the initial softening salvo from China would probably include several thousand missile launches with no real risk of getting hit back.


I
 
Top