Indo Pacific strategy

OPSSG

Super Moderator
Staff member
Part 4 of 6: The Taiwan factor in regional calculations

Anyone wanting to help Taiwan would indeed have to fight their way in...

Personally I feel the possibility of an actual PLA amphibious operation is for from certain and that this highly risky undertaking, even if it succeeds in landing, is fraught with danger for the PLA. Taiwanese forces would still be able to deploy in strength and speed to prevent the PLA from expanding its beachheads.
14. If grey-zone activity, rather than outright invasion, is China’s preferred approach to achieving ‘reunification’, Taiwan’s defence strategies, and not only its tactics, will need to be more immediately responsive to up-to-the-minute intelligence and analyses. Put another way, the defence of the island perhaps no longer entails simply determining the when and where of an invasion, but requires an evolving and dynamic understanding of what counts as warfare, and how it may be prosecuted. The possibility of an actual PLA amphibious invasion is low (less than 5% chance) — it is an operation that is inherently risky — with the possibility of failure. But this should not excuse the ROC’s grossly inadequate war prep, as shown in the above video — as a defence forum we need to understand the difference between Taiwanese propaganda and actual military capability.

15. In a Sankei newspaper opinion column via Japan Forward, Yoji Koda, a retired commander of Japan’s Maritime Self-Defence Forces (JMSDF), warned of “devastating consequences” if the country did not prepare itself for a potential conflict involving Taiwan and China. On the one hand, I suspect that Taiwan’s Army will fight for between 11 to 21 days (before we see mass surrenders), even if they have hit IOC with the 108 modern MBTs they just ordered. On the other hand, if the Americans manage to deploy:

(a) the 25th Combat Aviation Brigade;​
(b) a further 108 to 162 MBTs, along with the same amount of Bradley IFVs (and defended by NASAMS, with a 25km range); and​
(c) the HIMARS battalions from 17th Field Artillery Brigade,​

before the start of hostilities to reinforce Taiwan and concurrently, the Japanese deploy 12,000 personnel and 3,900 vehicles from two GSDF divisions, in the 1st wave — I believe that any PLA attempt to invade is doomed to fail. If you have the right mix of forces, and have enough ammo, the defender can bleed any attacker endlessly. Part of this reinforcement plan was shown at exercise Orient Shield 21-2, that was held in Japan.

16. We need to keep in mind that the PLA rocket force (PLARF) has expanded by over 33% and taken important steps to streamline its support structure. Since 2017, scattered case elements responsible for missile storage, maintenance, transport, and loading have been pulled into a single unified regiment, improving logistical efficiency and coordination. A second unit has unified launch support functions such as meteorology, survey and mapping, engineering, and physical security. These seemingly mundane reforms to the PLARF’s support system play a critical role in ensuring that missiles get to their deployment sites, launch successfully, and accurately hit their targets

17. The Heritage Foundation’s Index of US Military Strength, found that the US military would be able to handle itself adequately in a single major regional conflict while maintaining smaller operations around the globe, but its “marginal” capabilities mean America would struggle if forced to take on a second major conflict at the same time.
(a) The 2021 report can be read here. “If you’re a European country, you have finally gotten serious in your intellectual awareness of the challenge Russia presents. If you’re South Korea and Japan, you’ve had to get serious about what to do with China,” Dakota Wood said. “Recognizing a problem and actually doing something to deal with that problem are two different issues, but if you don’t have the recognition, your actions are never going to change.”​
(b) Asking the 82nd airborne division (light infantry), to jump into Taiwan on C-17s after hostilities have started, is a waste of good men, when they can be more effective securing islands in the 1st and 2nd island chains along with the US Marines. To fight the PLA, it’s going to take 4 to 5 years of hard fighting in a full court press.​
(c) I would assume that the PLA is going to have to attack, Guam, and American bases in Japan concurrently, if they want to invade Taiwan. For an American President to waste forces with strategic mobility in the 1st 3 months of a 4 year war like that is unforgivable. America does not need to only fight a Taiwan invasion in that island. Instead, they can choke off China’s SLOCs from the 1st and 2nd island chains.​

A more likely scenario I see would be for the PLA to conduct a massive air and blockade of the island in conjunction with a concentrated air, ballistic/cruise missile attack, as well as a EW and cyber one to obtain the needed political and military results, without neccesarily having to invade the island and drawing Uncle Sam in.
18. Watch the above video in which Bonnie S. Glaser explains:

China’s current strategy is not to invade but to induce a sense of despair in the Taiwanese.​

And there are other military conflict scenarios I am more afraid of than a simple blockade of the main island of Taiwan — where the chance of occurrence is more than 10%. For example, raise a fake dispute or event over Kinmen Islands and use that as an excuse not to allow Taiwanese flights or Taiwanese coast guard ships to approach them. There is no invasion or blockade of the main island and it forces a disproportionate response. The PLA(N)’s surface force of over 450 ships can carry a variety of anti-ship and anti-radiation missiles to force an Australian Naval Task group in the 2030s, to exercise emissions control, while striking from over the horizon, with one barrage of missiles. Even the very capable JMSDF with their 4 huge escort fleets will struggle in the 2030s.

19. In Aug 2021, Russia’s defense minister hailed joint war games with China as a sign of increasingly close military cooperation that should expand further. China and Russia are actively planning for crisis just below the threshold of all out war.
(a) Sergei Shoigu flew to China to attend the drills that wrapped up in the Ningxia Hui Autonomous Region. “We have achieved a high level of cooperation between our militaries on land, in the air and at sea,” Shoigu said during a meeting with his Chinese counterpart, “Expanding it is an important part of our future activities.” The Russian military sent several Su-30SM fighters and a motorized infantry unit to take part in the maneuvers. Shoigu noted that the exercise marked the first time that Russian troops had taken part in joint drills on the territory of China, adding that it reflected a “new level” of military cooperation, to the benefit of regional and global stability.​
(b) There are many scenarios where a miscalculation in Korea, can trigger a joint Chinese-Russian response in the skies and seas near Taiwan. For example, the 1962 Sino-Indian War occurred when America was distracted during the Cuban Missile Crisis. The PLA showed great acumen in carefully executing the campaign according to the guidelines formulated by CCP Central Military Commission:​
(i) “to beat Indian troops soundly,” and​
(ii) “to wipe out the invading Indian forces totally and rapidly.”​
 
Last edited:

OPSSG

Super Moderator
Staff member
Part 5 of 6: The Taiwan factor in regional calculations

(c) According to PLA records from archives, Indian casualties during the war were 4,897 killed or wounded and 3,968 captured. The Indian Defense Ministry, in 1965, showed 1,383 Indian soldiers killed, 1,696 missing in action, 3,968 soldiers captured, and 1,047 soldiers wounded. Laurie Burkitt, Andrew Scobell and Larry M. Wortzel (2003) explains the key points to note on this CCP victory:​

We can also assume the Chinese are good at "deception" both at a strategic and operational level.
(d) Similar to PLA planning and literature on Taiwan, the 1962 Sino-Indian War had 3 key success factors:​
First, the 1962 Sino-Indian War placed emphasis on sudden attacks to catch the enemy unprepared. That is, the PLA values surprise. In 2021, the PLA(AF) flew 38 military aircraft into Taiwan's ADIZ, making it the largest number of daily sorties on record. Threatening? Of course. It is so routine that the PLA does not bother faking excuses anymore.​

Second, PLA tactics emphasized the rapid concentration of force at decisive points to surround enemy forces and defeat them in detail.​
Third, they place importance on superior knowledge of the terrain to take advantage of difficult terrain. For example, the PLA was able to operate more effectively in deep valleys and densely forested areas, in darkness. One way that the PLA adapted quickly to the challenges posed by the terrain was to advance on parallel routes to one point of attack.​
On the issue of morale and mass surrenders on the part of Taiwanese forces maybe but if things don't go well for PLA forces on the island, how long will their morale last?
20. The Taiwanese goal at the beachhead is not to accept PLA surrender but to kill all who land. In the Oct 1949, Battle of Kinmen, of 9,086 PLA troops who landed, only 5,175 were allowed to surrender — M5A1 tanks employed on Kinmen proved to be effective in countering the initial PLA landing forces. The PLA's initial landing force of the 244th regiment at Longkou (壟口) was met by three tanks (#64, #65, #66) of the 1st platoon, 3rd company of the ROC 1st Battalion, 3rd Tank Regiment. ROC tank crews who had depleted their ammunition used their tanks as road rollers to crush PLA infantry. If Taiwan cannot kill all PLA troops who land, they have to conduct a fighting retrograde (from the PLA seeking to break-out of the beachhead).

On the subject if armour, what in your opinion is behind the lack of urgency in improvements? Is it because the Taiwanese feel that focus should be on acquiring and improving the ability to prevent a cross Straits crossing or making it as costly as possible, rather than dealing with one in the event it succeeds?
21. Lack of realistic war scenario planning and a budget smaller than the minimum needed. Michael Mazza, an Asia expert at the American Enterprise Institute, believes the US should consider changing the conditions on the American arms Taiwan buys and said: “We think it’s time to rethink the Pentagon security assistance program for Taiwan. Right now, Taiwan pays for every defense article the United States transfers to it. But going forward, we should consider whether we can use the prospect of military aid as a means to encourage Taiwan to invest more in its own defense, in particular in certain capabilities where they may be under invested.” In contrast, a PLA(N), carrier battle group is heavily armed, with about 304 cells for air defence missiles. The destroyers serving as escorts also carry numerous vertically-launched YJ-18 ASCMs, CJ-10 land attack cruise missiles, and the YJ-83 anti-ship missiles. The PLA(N)’s Yu-6 torpedo completed development in 2005 and is carried on their destroyers and frigates. At speeds of sixty-five knots, the Yu-6 is faster than the listed speeds of the Mk 48 Mod 6 ADCAP. The ships in a Chinese carrier battle group would typically consist of:
  • 1 aircraft carrier (with 26 or 32 J15s)
  • 1 Type 055, Renhai class cruiser with 112 air defence missiles
  • 2 Type 052D or 052DL Luyang III class destroyers with 64 air defence missiles on each destroyer
  • 2 Type 054A or 054A+ frigates, with 32 air defence missiles on each Jiangkai II frigate
  • a Type 901 support ship

OPSSG,

Thank you for the informative post on the challenges faced by Taiwan, together with the references / comparisons to Singapore.
22. No worries, I tried to make this Taiwan discussion interesting but focused around what their army can do to improve their capability. The Taiwanese Air Force is at least 4 times the size of the RSAF, but, yet they are just a little less capable than Singapore. The Taiwanese Navy is at least 3 times bigger that the RSN but they are much less capable in anti-air warfare (lacking Aster armed frigates), unmanned weapons warfare (lacking USVs with counter mine technology and sonar), and submarine warfare (lacking AIP equipped submarines).

23. This is a video of Taiwan is pretending that it can defend itself, by landing aircraft on a road (as part of their regular series of military exercises). In recent months, Chinese air force jets have carried out a series of drills around Taiwan which have included bombers and advanced fighter jets. Chinese Defence Ministry spokesman Wu Qian said reiterated that the drills were routine. Right now in 2021, the PLA(N), operates 2 carriers, Liaoning (with 26 J15s) and Shandong (with 32 J15s) and a large fleet of Xian H-6 bombers armed with the YJ-12 anti-ship cruise missile (ASCM). The danger posed by the YJ-12 comes from its range of 400 km, making it the longest-ranged ACBM ever engineered, and its ability to travel at high rates of speed (up to Mach 3). These ASCMs when launched from the air, give the PLA(N) plenty of long range strike options. Just imagine how powerful the Chinese Navy will be by 2032, when it has 3 carriers and it begins to modernise its bomber fleet. Given its large H-6J and H-6G bomber fleet, the PLA(N) is more than its carriers — each of which carries 8 YJ-12 supersonic ASCMs.

24. At the same time, PLA Taiwan invasion preparations are accelerating, mainly with the integration of civilian sea and air transport assets, and more aggressive exercises and probes. Large civilian 15,000 to 30,000 ton Roll-On-Roll-Off ferries were previously assessed to be charged with transporting the bulk of PLA armored and mechanized units to captured Taiwan ports. Now they could be equipped with special ramps to join large PLA Navy amphibious assault ships to launch amphibious armored vehicles into the water. This could triple the number of amphibious armored vehicles that can be launched against Taiwan beaches.

25. Prior to the start of WWII, the French did not just built the maginot line and called it a day. The French military expenditures as well as the equipment and formations they bought and created showed that they were still planning to fight a war. Like the French, the current Taiwanese equipment is not bad either. What is wrong is the mindset. That is leading Taiwanese war planning in wrong direction.

26. Like the French, Taiwan plans to meet the enemy with their troops in their modern maginot line. Where the Taiwanese failed to see what kind of tactics were possible by all the new PLA weapons systems and technologies which emerged. And this will break their back during their fighting retrograde, from the PLA seeking to break-out of the beachhead. Taiwan News highlighted the “exciting new developments” of Taiwan’s recent armaments, which I see as doing the minimum (in the hopes that the Americans and Japanese do not notice the lack of effort and focus). Due to the PLA’s intensification of sea and air drills in the southwestern corner of Taiwan’s air defense identification zone, the Pratas Islands (Dongsha Islands, 東沙島) are under severe threat from China’s military. Taiwan’s Ministry of National Defense has responded by garrisoning the Marine Corps on the Pratas Islands, ostensibly to conduct off-shore training, but in reality to bolster its defences. IMO, a Chinese attack on Taiwan might possess certain key characteristics:

(a) a crippling first strike, occurring without warning signs or suddenly escalating when least expected. China’s objective would be to impose a political settlement before the US and Japan could effectively intervene;​
(b) mass cyberattacks would target Taiwanese C4I Systems. Activation of cells of Chinese agents embedded within Taiwanese society to engage in acts of assassination, disinformation, or sabotage; and​
(c) thousands of follow-on SRBM strikes (after the 1st strike), to last over 42 days, used for facilitating Chinese air operations over the Strait and Taiwan. Chinese air control would likely be viewed as a key prerequisite for a successful naval and amphibious campaign.​
 
Last edited:

Sandhi Yudha

Well-Known Member
I wonder what they have to discuss.
I can not believe that Malaysia will join china in an Anti-Aukus-Block / Counter-Aukus Movement.

 
Last edited:

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
I wonder what they have to discuss.
I can not believe that Malaysia will join chine in an Anti-Aukus-Block / Counter-Aukus Movement.

Who knows, but whatever it is it won't be good.
 

Ananda

The Bunker Group

Indonesia continue to pursue balance Investment Strategy. Like this EV battery move, which become one of Indonesia long term Investment Strategy to improve it's position toward Global EV industry.

This China Investment coming after South Korea already doing similar Investment on EV battery. South Korea already build ecosystem of EV Indus from battery to vehicle manufacturing with Hyundai. China seems want to do the same with Wuling and DSFK that already has manufacturing facilities, already talk in media that they will study market on Lower Price EV cars, instead Hyundai that aim more on Middle-Up class. Talk in market also speculate similar deal with Japan.

This strategy actually reflect Indonesia position toward China, that want to keep increasing business opportunity with China, but in same time try to balance it with other East Asian players especially South Korea and Japan. Japan for some time already considering themselves the Biggest partner for Indonesia. I suspect that's why they give more effort on defense co-op with Indonesia too.
 

STURM

Well-Known Member
I wonder what they have to discuss.
I can not believe that Malaysia will join china in an Anti-Aukus-Block / Counter-Aukus Movement.
Of course it wont and neither will any of ASEAN's original founding members. In private Malaysia probably welcomes this new bloc but of course it wont say so openly. Malaysia has a very tough bakancing act to mantain.
 

Sandhi Yudha

Well-Known Member

Indonesia continue to pursue balance Investment Strategy. Like this EV battery move, which become one of Indonesia long term Investment Strategy to improve it's position toward Global EV industry.

This China Investment coming after South Korea already doing similar Investment on EV battery. South Korea already build ecosystem of EV Indus from battery to vehicle manufacturing with Hyundai. China seems want to do the same with Wuling and DSFK that already has manufacturing facilities, already talk in media that they will study market on Lower Price EV cars, instead Hyundai that aim more on Middle-Up class. Talk in market also speculate similar deal with Japan.

This strategy actually reflect Indonesia position toward China, that want to keep increasing business opportunity with China, but in same time try to balance it with other East Asian players especially South Korea and Japan. Japan for some time already considering themselves the Biggest partner for Indonesia. I suspect that's why they give more effort on defense co-op with Indonesia too.
Its good that Indonesia start to move from just exporting raw materials for a low price to processing first before export. But reading things like
"Chengxin said the plant would produce 50,000 tonnes a year of lithium hydroxide and 10,000 tonnes a year of lithium carbonate, without providing a startup date." makes me quite nervous.
Chinese companies are not known for environmental friendly operation in their own country, but abroad they will care even less about the pollution and environmental impact.

| "Chengxin said it would own 65% of the joint venture – called PT ChengTok Lithium Indonesia – and Singapore-incorporated Stellar Investment Pte would hold 35%.
A Chengxin investor relations officer on Friday said Stellar is an affiliate of Tsingshan. "|

So the company will be 100% chinese and 0% Indonesian?
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Its good that Indonesia start to move from just exporting raw materials for a low price to processing first before export. But reading things like
"Chengxin said the plant would produce 50,000 tonnes a year of lithium hydroxide and 10,000 tonnes a year of lithium carbonate, without providing a startup date." makes me quite nervous.
Chinese companies are not known for environmental friendly operation in their own country, but abroad they will care even less about the pollution and environmental impact.

| "Chengxin said it would own 65% of the joint venture – called PT ChengTok Lithium Indonesia – and Singapore-incorporated Stellar Investment Pte would hold 35%.
A Chengxin investor relations officer on Friday said Stellar is an affiliate of Tsingshan. "|

So the company will be 100% chinese and 0% Indonesian?
That doesn't sound good at all. You're being ripped off.
 

STURM

Well-Known Member
Who knows, but whatever it is it won't be good.
The Malaysians will make every attempt to engage China and to avoid unnecessarily strained ties but nothing will change, it will continue to maintain good defence ties with a number of countries, namely the U.S. and Australia, whilst trying its best to appear non aligned and will continue to intercept Chinese intrusions in its EEZ, whilst also issuing formal protests.

The main problem for Malaysia is how to respond if China raises things to a new level.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Ananda

The Bunker Group
Investment holding like that Stellar, basically is a shell company. So the beneficiary behind that could be another Chinese company, or could be Indonesian "Investor" that using layers of identity to hide real "beneficiary". I don't want to speculate on anything on that more, some NGO in here already facing legal trouble due to 'unfounded' accusation ;).

Shell Holding company is basically Investment SPV (special purpose vehichle), that can be hard to break down. Those NGO in my opinion is just 'careless' on pointing out to someone based on 'rumours' on whose behind those Shell Company.

As for enviromental control, well it's back to how Indonesian Enviromental Ministry able to control and maintain the rules. It's true that Western Mining and Chemical Companies now has more pressure from the publics in their own countries to control the environment. However if the host country also lack on implementing enviromental control, they also will take the opportunity.
 

Sandhi Yudha

Well-Known Member
With this the chinese armed forces can deploy Autonomous Underwater Vehicles easier, quicker and on a larger scale than ever before. This also means that countries like Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines and Papua-Nugini can expect more often finding such vehicles in their waters.
 

OPSSG

Super Moderator
Staff member
Gap between Austin’s concept and ground reality — Part 5

17. In July 2021 (click on link to go back to part 1 of a 4 part series), where Secretary Austin gave a lecture in Singapore titled "The Imperative of Partnership" and it affirms Biden administration's position that no country can go it alone: "Our network of alliances & friendships is an unparalleled strategic asset." In his vision, integrated deterrence also means working with partners to deter coercion and aggression across the spectrum of conflict… including in the so-called “grey zone” where the rights and livelihoods of the people of Southeast Asia are coming under stress.

(a) Within AUKUS, a new three-way strategic defence alliance between Australia, the UK and US, initially to build a class of nuclear-propelled submarines, but also to work together in the Indo-Pacific region, where the rise of China is seen as an increasing threat, and develop wider technologies. In this effort, the Americans look to the Japanese and Australians for support within the Quad.​
(b) In the 2030s, the Pinoys as a country with ZERO fighters intend to operate 3 C-130Js (provided an order with Lockheed Martin is eventually signed). How much of a non-factor from this useless ally? The Pinoys drive their former US Coast Guard cutter onto a reef and take more than 3 years to repair the ship.​

19. In 1966, then Prime Minister, Lee Kuan Yew gave a speech on Singapore's place in the world. In his speech, he quoted a Chinese proverb: "Big fish eat small fish; small fish eat shrimps". There are different types of shrimps, he said. Some are poisonous: "If you eat them, you will get digestive upsets." Given the size of other countries and their military capabilities, Singapore was merely a shrimp in the global sea. According to him, the SAF had to at least become a poisonous shrimp. In Feb and in Sep 2021, the Chinese PLA Navy conducted joint maritime drills with Singapore’s Navy in the South China Sea, a move that, according to Chinese military commentators, boosted the two navies' mutual trust and enhanced the level of military cooperation between both countries.
(a) Despite the signing of an enhanced Agreement on Defence Exchanges and Security Cooperation (ADESC) in Oct 2019, a bilateral move that formalises activities between Singapore’s MINDEF and PLA (i.e. port calls, bilateral exercises, mutual visits and cross-attendance of courses), the military-to-military relationship between the two countries start-off from a low base — when it is compared with the Australians (as fellow FPDA members and as hosts to multiple Singaporean military bases), the Taiwanese (as hosts to multiple Singaporean military bases) or the Americans (as partners and as hosts to multiple Singaporean military bases in the US and as mil-tech technology suppliers that include, Apaches (20), Seahawks (8), F-16Vs (60), F-15SGs (40), F-35Bs (4) and tons of other military equipment).​
(b) The 2019 ADESC was signed 27 days after Singapore Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and US President Donald Trump agreed to extend a 1990 MOU that allows American military aircraft and naval vessels to use facilities in the city state, the short interval between the two signings is likely to draw comparisons between the two deals and raise questions about Singapore's motives. A key component of Singapore’s poisonous shrimp doctrine is fostering interoperability with Australia. At the top of the list as part of the ASMTI, which the Australians describe as providing an “opportunity for Australia to build defence capability and enhance its bilateral relationship with Singapore, while providing enduring economic benefits to central and north Queensland;” further supporting this poisonous shrimp doctrine is Singapore’s participation in the Five Power Defence Arrangements (FDPA) between the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, Malaysia and Singapore, which promotes closer military collaboration, integrated command and control and collective defence in the region.​
20. Singapore’s recent acceptance of the first of four Invincible Class submarines built in Germany (designed to provide the Singapore Navy with a regionally superior submarine capable of patrolling and controlling the key tactical and strategic maritime environments), ensures that Singapore has a vote in securing its SLOCs. Supporting this, the Singaporean Navy also operates 6 Formidable-class frigates, as the core of its surface combat force, with plans to replace the vintage 6 Victory-class corvettes with MRCVs and completed the introduction of the 8 new Independence class littoral mission vessels.
(a) Most recently, Singapore started the process of replacing its ageing fleet of F-16s with the short take-off, vertical landing (STOVL) B variant of the F-35 to serve as the backbone of the RSAF’s future air combat capability starting with the first 4 to be delivered from 2026. This planned initial acquisition of 12 (order of 4, with an option of 8), will serve to bring the SAF in line with the United States and other key regional partners, including Australia, Japan and South Korea. While Singapore considered all variants of the F-35 platform, specific focus was placed on the specialised STOVL B variant given the geographic realities of Singapore.​
(b) The Singaporean Army has some qualitative advantages over potential adversaries, that includes deploying over 206 Leopard 2SGs, multiple battalions of locally made Hunter, Bronco and Terrax armoured vehicles, with tight tri-service integration with the RSAF; with high end training conducted the Australia or America.​
 
Last edited:

OPSSG

Super Moderator
Staff member
Gap between Austin’s concept and ground reality — Part 6

21. Balancing Singapore's relationship with China (Singapore’s largest trading partner) and the US (its biggest foreign investor) is more complex than simply brokering a deal with both sides. Though the specifics are different, the art of the deal with China and the US stems from a common intention by all signatories to enhance regional peace and stability.

(a) While regional partnerships are part of of the poison shrimp doctrine, establishing and maintaining a qualitative edge over potential adversaries is a critical component. In a similar manner to Australia’s own strategic doctrine and posture, Singapore has invested heavily in a range of advanced capabilities and platforms.​

(b) Further, beyond out-reach to both great powers, Singapore works with other littoral states, like Malaysia (as a fellow FDPA member) and Indonesia (as a fellow ASEAN member), to provide search and rescue services to navies in the disputed South China Sea.​

22. All great powers (like the US and China), regional powers (like Japan and India) and middle powers (like Australia, Korea and Indonesia, who are also G20 members) with navies that operate in or pass by the South China Sea’s SLOCs know that if they have a marine casualty, a marine incident at sea or even an air crash, when they give Singapore a call, our SAR helicopters (code named Rescue 10 or 11), and naval vessels will swiftly come to assist in the rescue or recovery efforts. As an example, on 21 Aug 2017, USS John S. McCain was involved in a collision with the Liberian-flagged tanker Alnic MC in the South China Sea and the first on scene rescue helicopters and vessels were from Singapore. All the Chiefs of Navies have to do at a time of crisis is give Singapore’s Chief of Navy a call, for rescue to follow.
 
Last edited:

OPSSG

Super Moderator
Staff member
Part 6 of 6: The Taiwan factor in regional calculations

27. China has already begun a process of coercion, and as that continues, the next actions they take may not — and I think likely would not — be an all outright invasion of Taiwan. It might include anything from a blockade to increased cyber harassment, to seizure of the islands in between China and Taiwan. Michael Mazarr, a former National War College, professor and special assistant to the JCS chair now at the RAND Corporation said: “They could take some of those actions and kind of flip the deterrence script by taking a partial action and then attempting to deter us from responding or escalating.”

28. Writing as far back as Mar 2010, James R. Holmes and Toshi Yoshihara notes that:

“Chinese observers by and large agree that, for a variety of reasons, the Taiwan Navy is not up to par regarding the sea-control functions outlined in the ROCN Vision. Condescension pervades Chinese analyses of the ROCN. Writing in Modern Navy, Yang Peng notes that Taiwan’s surface fleet is acutely vulnerable to guided missile-strikes. The fleet’s AAW pickets are particularly susceptible to saturation missile attacks (baohe daodan gongji) and rely excessively on the protective umbrella hoisted by tactical air power. Yang forecasts that Taiwanese ships will hesitate to venture beyond the range of land-based air cover. This reticence severely constricts the Taiwanese Navy’s tactical radius. Wu Letian not only questions the Taiwan Navy’s ability to prosecute anti-submarine and minesweeping operations, but also deprecates its capacity to fight at sea for very long.​
More specifically, Chinese analysts voice dismissive attitudes toward Taiwan’s main surface combatants. For instance, they appear not to take the Kidd-class destroyers, the island’s capital ships, very seriously. Sea-power theorist Alfred Thayer Mahan famously defined capital ships as “the backbone and real power of any navy,” meaning “the vessels which, by due proportion of defensive and offensive powers, are capable of taking and giving hard knocks”. By this standard, the ROCN falls woefully short—as Chinese thinkers rightly observe…​
Taipei’s vision of offensive sea control, then, appears less and less tenable, and Beijing knows it. Chinese naval thinkers have shrewdly and accurately taken the Taiwan Navy’s measure. Whether the ROCN will candidly evaluate its own shortcomings—and adapt its strategy, doctrine and forces to compensate—remains to be seen.”​

29. Anyone who wants to defend them have to fight their way into the island — which is why I don’t approve of blind support for the Taiwanese. For the last 11 years, Taiwan has a navy that can’t fight and the PLA(N) knows it and it’s Air Force has F-16Vs that can’t strike at range because they have zero air-to-air refuelling capability — which limits their loiter time and range — in contrast Singapore ordered 6 A330MRTTs, with the RSAF’s tanker squadron already operational — a capability that Taiwan does not have.

30. According to Taipei Times, “President Tsai Ing-wen’s administration is under no illusions, and is not relying on Washington to take the initiative and send its military to assist Taiwan should a conflict break out.” Taiwanese media assert that Taiwan is fully capable of defending itself — which is not true. Masahisa Sato, a senior lawmaker of Japan’s governing Liberal Democratic Party and an expert on defense, told a recent forum on security in Asia that right now the U.S.-Japan alliance is focused largely on a response to a possible conflict stemming from the Korean Peninsula, and it needs to be broadened to consider what to do if there is a Chinese attack on Taiwan. He noted that the Sakishima island group, which includes some of Okinawa’s remote islands, “is right next to Taiwan and is part of a same theater. We should consider a Taiwan contingency as nearly equal to a Japan contingency,” Sato said.

(a) IMHO, Taiwan spends more to get less, when compared to Singapore, because they train them so poorly (i.e. they have a bigger army than us). Taiwan may have more fighters than Singapore but a systems of systems level (for command and control and SEAD), they are a golden mile behind. Taipei Times cited Taiwan President Tsai Ing-wen as stating that “[…]Taiwan’s only option is to make ourselves stronger, more united and more resolute in our determination to protect ourselves.”​

(b) This strategy is what David Kilcullen calls liminal warfare. Others have used the “little green men” expression — they have plans for undermining a sovereign nation without firing a shot — the Russians are going to do it through intimidation, spawning social or nationalistic unrest, capitalizing on social-media and utilizing the new domains of cyber and space in coordinated attacks that occur under the threshold of war. “I think it is fair to say that Taiwan is nowhere near to where it needs to be,” said Michael Mazarr. For most with an interest in military matters, Taiwan’s annual Han Kuang military exercise is an indication that Taipei is:​

(i) not doing enough (see my linked videos at post #307, to understand why Taiwan’s conscript training standards is rubbish); and​
(ii) not the right things to strengthen its defences against China as an ever mightier adversary.​
 
Last edited:

Sandhi Yudha

Well-Known Member
Our big friend Duterte recently announced that he will not join the race for vice-president. He will surprisingly resign after the elections next year and it seems that he want his daughter as his replacement.

I expect that his arselicking policy towards china will continue, because he will undoubtly have a huge influence on his daughter.

 
Last edited:

ManteoRed

New Member
I did a quick search and didnt see in the first page or two any particular thread that seemed to cover this topic in specific detail. I understand the nature of this type of conversation could lend itself to going off the rails into fantasy land so that may be the reason I didnt one, but anyway, thought since it seems to be one of the most likely flash points of the next decade or so might be worth at least attempting something like this.

I suppose to start off with, its important to keep in mind the limitations of Taiwan in regards to its ability to source foreign made hardware because of PRC pressure placed on any of those potential suppliers. For the last couple decades it seems to have been down to a carefully curated shopping list handed to them by the US government every few years. However with the steadily souring mood towards from many towards China do you think its possible they may see a few cracks of sunlight with regards to FMS from places like Japan/Australia/Britain, or hear me out on this one. Perhaps even the Russians.

I know those former countries are still somewhat dependent on China for commercial goods but if the PRC continues to throw its weight around, a diversifying of global supply chains may be what happens, which opens the door to less Chinese leverage. As for the Russians, some people think that China/Russia are tied at the hip, but I tend to look at Russia as willing to play all sides off against each other when they can. They're clearly cautious of the Chinese stealing there military technology, but there is also some occasional border tension between the two in the Russian far east. When it suits the Russians to stick a finger an the American eye they buddy up with China, when they get too close the Chinese seem to enjoy reminding them that they're expected to be the Junior party, which obviously irks Putin.

With the Chinese in an energy crunch, and the Russians supplying a lot of natural gas, the Russians may be the ones with a little more leverage than Xi would like. Though its possible that may be a bridge too far, actually causing a conflict by slowing energy supplies to a powerful nation that already feels like its being surrounded. Might end up being more heat than Putin would like. Just something to think about for the coming years though...
 

ManteoRed

New Member
Sorry I needed to split this up into a couple posts, it was getting long.

I guess that first post would be geo-political in nature, if were talking more tactical, I would like some of you guys opinions on what the Taiwanese have purchased from these US government shopping lists. There's always a lot made of them purchasing F-16's and those OHP frigates that were handed off a few years ago, but those seem like costly and less valuable assets to my way of thinking.

If you're Taiwan,
1) never going to be able to go on the offensive in the sense of landing on the mainland
2) never going to outnumber them in most any serious sense.

So it seems like especially those Frigates are a total budgetary drain in the event of an actual conflict. Sending them out into the Straight seems like a cruel waste of lives for no foreseeable gain. The only use I could imagine for them is to essentially weld them to the dock and leave only enough crew on board to man and operate the onboard air defense systems.

As for the F-16s, they would be going up into the sky heavily out numbered, and even over the RoC, Chinese ground based SAM's from the mainland have at least some coverage that far out. So whats the plan? Do you send them and out to sea and hope to take long range pot shots at incoming PLA-AF aircraft?
 

ManteoRed

New Member
I dont know that any of this is publicly available, but something that seems to be the most valuable in terms of defense is also something relatively low tech and inexpensive. Preparing the battlefield. Identify which beaches could support an amphibious invasion, have tank traps nearby ready to be rapidly deployed, and perhaps offshore underwater systems to trap/bottleneck incoming vehicles/landing craft. Also multiple transport links(not just a single road). Would need to rapidly flow in enough forces to meet them on the beach.

And second, air defense systems, deep, mobile and heavily layered. Deny the PLA ground/naval forces close air support for as long as possible.

Am I wrong in thinking that even with the Chinese government there are limits to the amount of lives they can waste on this? If you can make it painful enough will it cause them to pull back, or do you believe they would continue to throw men into a meat grinder?
 
Top