Japan, Koreas, China and Taiwan regional issues

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
i dont think i'm support of mainland, there are many issue with its government. such as their claim over SCS is overreaching. But i also think both mainland taiwan has its own issue. many mainland chinese are overly nationalistic, and the ccp has no issue to use that. i also think China overreacting whenever some parliament member from some country x criticizing them. They also use their "wolf warrior" tactic abit too much.
as for taiwan, sometime watching their party dispute between each other is like watching amateur MMA.
You know watching robust Taiwanese Parliamentary debate can be quite entertaining. Shame we can't run a betting book on it.
 

Musashi_kenshin

Active Member

Twenty-five Chinese military jets breached Taiwan’s defence zone on Monday, the island’s government has said, after a senior US official warned of an “increasingly aggressive” Beijing.

The defence ministry scrambled aircraft to broadcast warnings to leave after Chinese jets, including 18 fighters, entered the island’s southwest air defence identification zone for a 10th straight day.

The incursion – the largest in a year – came after the US secretary of state, Antony Blinken, on Sunday warned China not to attempt to change the status quo around Taiwan, saying to do so would be a “serious mistake”.
Sometimes I worry that China will take action that leads to war not because it intends to, but because it's being ignored.

There are zero prospects of the Taiwanese government making concessions that lead to direct talks whilst such obvious threats of violence are being made. So what is China actually expecting from all of this? If over the course of President Tsai's last term Beijing doesn't get its way on anything, will it accept that?
 

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
More messaging in Australia about Taiwan.

It seems most planning around this seems to think that the conflict is likely to timeframe within the next 5 years. I think that is optimistically long. Planning it seems is going beyond what Australia would contribute to such a conflict, as we are quite distant from it, but more about what happens after it.

Its pretty universal in Australia and all the think tanks are saying basically the same thing. War is now a real possibility, prepare for the conflict, prepare for post conflict situations. While not inevitable, its certainly a very real situation developing. In terms of preparation, COVID19 has probably helped in that regard, and recent Chinese trade actions have made it a clear priority that Australian businesses need to diversify away from China, and more importantly, develop local supply chains.
Sometimes I worry that China will take action that leads to war not because it intends to, but because it's being ignored.
Communication is extremely strained currently. When you have diplomats asking media if they have heard anything recently, its very bad. It appears all that effort into soft diplomacy and relationship building have not developed the side communication links we had all hoped would develop.

In such situations, misunderstandings, and miscommunications can easily cause conflicts. Even when carefully crafted by competent people and both sides genuinely don't want to fight. As an Australian, East Timor is a classic recent example.

I don't think China is being ignored, but regular dialog isn't occurring, and small issues, over time can cause calamities.
 

Sandhi Yudha

Well-Known Member
Somaliland and Taiwan have recently opened diplomatic missions in each other countries.
As expected china is not pleased with this. I wonder what the next step of china will be. Maybe they will actively support Somalia in the conflict with Somaliland, or they want to destabilize or punish Somaliland in another way.
|"But more needs to be done," Mr Lou says. "I was on the beach in Berbera when a young girl, no more than five, came up to me. She only spoke Somali, but then she pointed at me and shouted 'Covid-19!'. Once again, I said: 'No, I am from Taiwan', but I am not sure she understood."|

I can imagine this situation.... :-D
 

weaponwh

Member
Its pretty universal in Australia and all the think tanks are saying basically the same thing. War is now a real possibility, prepare for the conflict, prepare for post conflict situations. While not inevitable, its certainly a very real situation developing. In terms of preparation, COVID19 has probably helped in that regard, and recent Chinese trade actions have made it a clear priority that Australian businesses need to diversify away from China, and more importantly, develop local supply chains.
not sure where Australia can diverse its business, its not like there is an economy that can just buy up all the products left out due to China-Australia trade issue. Also New Zealand just made a free trade deal with china, some the overlapping export products between the two could shift favor for New Zealand.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
not sure where Australia can diverse its business, its not like there is an economy that can just buy up all the products left out due to China-Australia trade issue. Also New Zealand just made a free trade deal with china, some the overlapping export products between the two could shift favor for New Zealand.
NZ has had a FTA with the PRC for 12 years. It was recently upgraded. Both Australia and NZ can diversify their markets to ensure less reliance upon the PRC and both are in the process of doing so. Both our nations had to diversify our markets quickly in the early 1970s after our main trading partner shat on us, so it's something we have done before and successfully completed.
 

OPSSG

Super Moderator
Staff member
Its pretty universal in Australia and all the think tanks are saying basically the same thing. War is now a real possibility, prepare for the conflict, prepare for post conflict situations. While not inevitable, its certainly a very real situation developing.
1. But I don’t think that both Australia and Singapore are really trying, to prepare for a ‘high-end conventional war;’ if we were, there would be a much stronger focus:
(a) on air defence units in our air forces; and/or​
(b) counter battery fires for the army.​

Our increased but limited investments in air and naval power are more suited to a troubled peace scenario for the Indo-Pacific; with our air forces too being thin in bench strength to fight for air superiority against a future peer threat, without extensive allied support.

2. In this regard, I see this 2020 to May 2024 period of tension between China and Taiwan through the lens of the 1991 period of tension between Malaysia and Singapore (where escalation control was important as the trouble peace evolved through various moves from Feb 1991 to Aug 1991).
(a) There may be limited applicability of past tensions between Malaysia and Singapore due to differences in size of forces and threat matrix but the operational planning mindset remains a North Star to guide this Taiwanese discussion. The PLA’s decision to send 25 fighter jets and bombers into Taiwan’s ADIZ, as a show of force, in Apr 2021, is the logical outcome of DPP-CCP hostility.​
(b) If Singapore believes war is likely, the SAF will have to consider withdrawing from our military bases in Taiwan, to get our conscripts out from the ongoing dispute between the DPP and CCP. In Jan 2020, it was reported that a Singaporean Commando trainee was taking part in a night static line parachute jump as part of his Basic Airborne Course in Taiwan when he faced a "static line interference", which saw the line sweep across his neck. This is a known risk for such jumps and occurs when the line is too slack, interfering with the jumper's exit and indicates that the SAF has no intention to withdraw from its bases there.​

3. Australia and Singapore have capable air forces that don’t have enough fighters for a hot war — the force structure is too small to take combat induced attrition (over a period of 30 days). But we can inject a man with a gun in most troubled peace scenarios but our capabilities, even when combined under the FPDA are limited, when compared to the JSDF. Therefore, I see the Australian and Singaporean desire for our air forces and navies to be more capable as a desire to secure a troubled peace.

4. Singapore for example, cut its fighter force from 7 squadrons to 5 today (i.e. 3 F-16 squadrons and 2 understrength F-15SG squadrons). Our total air force size is less than 1 fighter wing of the USAF; IMHO, we can’t decide to fight alone against a real peer threat.
 
Last edited:

Stampede

Well-Known Member



Sometimes I worry that China will take action that leads to war not because it intends to, but because it's being ignored.

There are zero prospects of the Taiwanese government making concessions that lead to direct talks whilst such obvious threats of violence are being made. So what is China actually expecting from all of this? If over the course of President Tsai's last term Beijing doesn't get its way on anything, will it accept that?
I'm still trying to wear my naïve hat and view Chinas actions as a long term series of provoking measures to achieve an end.
That being the reunification of Taiwan with mainland China.

That being said, 25 aircraft provoking Taiwanese airspace is certainly an escalation in the art of pressure diplomacy.
The odd incursion by a flight of four aircraft is bad enough, but with this sort of force one has to reconsider what is going on.
This is a serious statement of intent.
This is a squadron plus sized force of which 18 are multirole fights.
So what's happens next week?
Two Squadrons?

How do you respond to such a force.
Either you have superior aircraft of superior numbers.
Taiwan's Airforce is just not that big.
So what would and should Taiwanese allies do if assistance is called for and does Taiwan actually have any true allies.
Its all too confusing and made worse by a provocative PRC.

I'd like to stay under the naïve hat and think Chin's PLAN is currently not up to the task of forcing the issue, but like their Chinese Air force they too are placing pressure by exercising a carrier battle group in the Taiwanese Strait.

Too much happening too quickly.
Time for the interested party's to have a cup of tea and a chat.

Things can get out of hand quickly when intensions are misunderstood.


Concerned S
 

oldsig127

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
not sure where Australia can diverse its business, its not like there is an economy that can just buy up all the products left out due to China-Australia trade issue. Also New Zealand just made a free trade deal with china, some the overlapping export products between the two could shift favor for New Zealand.
And yet, wine aside, virtually all of the sectors affected by the Chinese bastardry are now exporting as much or more than at this time last year

I expect that NZ will bend over and bare its collective backside when Xi requires it rather than give him the finger as would have been done 30 years ago. There are many individual spines in NZ but none in government or the media, and the forces have been reduced to a barely credible rump trying hard to maintain relevance. The current PM won't do a thing that doesn't require sympathetic expressions.

oldsig
 

Musashi_kenshin

Active Member

Archive link here. Presumably these are M109A6 Paladins.

It's interesting if Biden is preparing DSCA notifications for Taiwan so soon into his term of office. Would be another clear sign that the US isn't for turning on better Washington-Taipei relations.
 
Last edited:

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
3. Australia and Singapore have capable air forces that don’t have enough fighters for a hot war — the force structure is too small to take combat induced attrition (over a period of 30 days). But we can inject a man with a gun in most troubled peace scenarios but our capabilities, even when combined under the FPDA are limited, when compared to the JSDF. Therefore, I see the Australian and Singaporean desire for our air forces and navies to be more capable as a desire to secure a troubled peace.
This seems to be around what planning is occurring.

If war breaks out over Taiwan with China and the US, both Singapore and Australia will be too far away and too small in number to make a significant contribution.

AFR has been regularly publishing about war planning.

Sources have told AFR Weekend that the Australian Defence Force was planning for a potential worst-case scenario if the United States and China clashed over Taiwan, prompting debate over the scope and scale of Canberra’s contribution to what would be an unprecedented conflict in the region.

Options include contributing to an allied effort with submarines, as well as maritime surveillance aircraft, air-to-air re-fuelers and potentially Super Hornet fighters operating from US bases in Guam or the Philippines, and even Japan.
IMO E7, P8 and air to air re-fuelers are probably the sort of assets that would be very valuable and in short supply, particularly if there was a need for high operational rates. Anything in terms of fighters would probably be around protection and escort for that kind of deployment.

Navy wise, a single aegis ship is unlikely to make a difference. We can however, help patrol our area, make a safe corridor, provide ship maintenance, rearm, and repair capabilities. Provide strategic depth, which is short in this type of conflict. We would be surging our subs however, that kind of capability will be in huge demand. I could see us possibly operating some of them out of Japan or Guam.

Both Australia and Singapore are small countries in the scheme of things. Unless the fight comes to us, we are only going to be making small niche contributions. Doesn't mean they aren't valuable. Probably our most important contributions will come post conflict.

That is the problem with Taiwan, taking Taiwan, will not solve China's problems. I'm not really sure what winning is in that scenario. But that may not be the point. Having a distracting conflict which clearly identifies other nations as enemies gives the CCP all the excuse it needs to have harsh enforcement internally. Things like a shrinking population, shrinking economy, failing centrally planned economy, failing ecosystem, etc will be very much secondary.
 
IMO E7, P8 and air to air re-fuelers are probably the sort of assets that would be very valuable and in short supply, particularly if there was a need for high operational rates. Anything in terms of fighters would probably be around protection and escort for that kind of deployment.
I tend to agree with this statement. Extra P-8, E-7 and KC-30’s would provide an invaluable boost even to almost any ASEAN state Australia wants to support, let alone Singapore.

In addition to this, the other thing I think the RAAF would consider, is some form of “active reserve” on these types. Given they are all based on current civil airframes, it would be relatively easy to have current, trained pilots and engineering support ready to go. The “backseaters” in the E-7 and P-8 would be harder to fill with reserve crew, but even some sort of mixed units (50/50 active VS reserves) would help with surge capacity and provide a reasonable standard of crew ability.

This sort of capability would be a massive boost and useful contribution to security in SE Asia.
 

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
In addition to this, the other thing I think the RAAF would consider, is some form of “active reserve” on these types. Given they are all based on current civil airframes, it would be relatively easy to have current, trained pilots and engineering support ready to go. The “backseaters” in the E-7 and P-8 would be harder to fill with reserve crew, but even some sort of mixed units (50/50 active VS reserves) would help with surge capacity and provide a reasonable standard of crew ability.
While possible, there doesn't look to have been much movement in this space. Existing numbers and platforms were long planned for and lead items and crews were already in existing planning. Maybe something looked at going forward. If the fleet size or tempo increases.

Some civil technicians were hired for F-35/Hawk programs at the start of COVID19.
 

IPCR_quad

Member
Taiwan requests long range cruise missiles from the US. IMO such missiles are urgently needed by Taiwan to deter China. Currently without aerial refueling tankers, strategic bombers, air launched cruise missiles, Taiwan's F-16 does not have the range to hit back at Kashgar airbase which is located 4,500+ km from the capital Taipei.

Taiwan says seeking long-range cruise missiles from U.S.
 
Last edited:

weaponwh

Member
Taiwan requests long range cruise missiles from the US. IMO such missiles are urgently needed by Taiwan to deter China. Currently without aerial refueling tankers, strategic bombers, air launched cruise missiles, Taiwan's F-16 does not have the range to hit back at Kashgar airbase which is located 4,500+ km from the capital Taipei. Only if Taiwan can strike back at Kashgar airbase can Taiwan deter China.

Taiwan says seeking long-range cruise missiles from U.S.
not sure why taiwan need to reach kashgar at all. almost all china industry are located near coastal area. and if china invade taiwan, its main force will be near coastal region as well. it doesn't even make sense to strike target that far when there are plenty primary target near the coastal area.
 

OPSSG

Super Moderator
Staff member
Taiwan requests long range cruise missiles from the US. IMO such missiles are urgently needed by Taiwan to deter China.
Agreed.

It is known that when Taiwan acquires a robust inventory of short-range and medium range cruise missiles, such counter-value offensive missile inventory will improve Taiwan’s ability to deter aggression by invasion from China.

This is because the PLA(N) and PLA will need to prepare for such invasion and if Taiwan can credibly disrupt, degrade, and interdict Chinese command and control nodes, military airfields, naval ports, and supply depots, that affect the PLA’s ability to send reinforcements, it can raise the cost of such an attack on Taiwan and avoid the need to only fight at the beach.
Currently without aerial refueling tankers, strategic bombers, air launched cruise missiles, Taiwan's F-16 does not have the range to hit back at Kashgar airbase which is located 4,500+ km from the capital Taipei.
Let me debunk your post with two points for your consideration:

One, developing, acquiring or buying from domestic sources (see link on Taiwan’s domestic missile production capability) and US made missiles will send a signal to the PLA that its command nodes and it protective IADS systems, including its radars for the HQ16, HQ-9B/HQ-9C, (i.e. S400/S300 equivalent) and HQ-19 layers in missile defence systems will not have a safe sanctuary from which the Chinese army and marines can mass and project combat power, especially during the earliest—and most vulnerable—phases of an amphibious invasion. The Chinese see missile defense as a key cog in their military ambitions. The PLAAF is accelerating the transition of its tasks from territorial air defense to both offensive and defensive operations, according to a Chinese white paper on the subject. China's air force is also improving its capabilities for strategic early warning, air strikes, and air and missile defense.

Two, it is not in US interest to allow Taiwan to develop a fleet of strategic bombers; nor does Taiwan need to waste money on such a 4,500+ km offensive strike capability. But it might make sense in the future for Biden (post-2023) to consider a F-15EX sale to Taiwan, to increase Taiwan’s air force’s strike capability — in line with the capability resident in Korea and Japan.
Only if Taiwan can strike back at Kashgar airbase can Taiwan deter China.
I hereby issue a source challenge for this irrational and illogical position; please provide a link to a reputable source that supports your statement. If not, you are engaging in speculation.
 
Last edited:

IPCR_quad

Member
not sure why taiwan need to reach kashgar at all. almost all china industry are located near coastal area. and if china invade taiwan, its main force will be near coastal region as well. it doesn't even make sense to strike target that far when there are plenty primary target near the coastal area.
China's coastal air bases could be dedicated to air defense with J-10C, J-16, J-20. Airbases far from Taiwan such as Kashgar could be dedicated to strike with H-6 K/N strategic bombers which are armed with long range cruise missiles. That way, China can maximize air defense of the coast and strike Taiwan from Kashgar which is out of range of Taiwan's F-16. This is why Taiwan would need to be able to strike back to be able to deter China from striking in the first place, and right now Taiwan's F-16 don't have that capability.
 
Last edited:

IPCR_quad

Member
I hereby issue a source challenge for this irrational and illogical position; please provide a link to a reputable source that supports your statement. If not, you are engaging in speculation.
To be able to hit back is deterrence from getting hit in the first place. I don't have a source for this. I consider it common sense. In any event, I have deleted my statement from my post, which is post #235.
 

IPCR_quad

Member
Two, it is not in US interest to allow Taiwan to develop a fleet of strategic bombers; nor does Taiwan need to waste money on such a 4,500+ km offensive strike capability. But it might make sense in the future for Biden (post-2023) to consider a F-15EX sale to Taiwan, to increase Taiwan’s air force’s strike capability — in line with the capacities resident in Korea and Japan.
Taiwan has far smaller budget, a fraction of that of South Korea or Japan. F-15EX is far more costly to buy and operate compared to F-16, and may not be suitable for Taiwan. What Taiwan needs are long range missiles for deterrence, not necessarily fighter jets.
 
Top