Taiwan Armed Forces

[Aepsilons]

I think soon Taiwan will look towards acquiring more Mirage-2000s as spares from South America and as a full aircraft from France which has about 150 of them or may be looking to take license production of EF-2000s or Rafaels.

Some authoritative addendum(s):

 

[Gufi]

The PLAAF would not enjoy Air supremacy for sure, not even Air Superiority, only maybe Local Superiority.

Your assumptions are not really factually correct. I respect your posts in general but numbers matter in war time. Yes Islands are easy to defend if you have a superior navy and can prevent the attackers from landing.
But any attack would first take care of the infrastructure which would cripple the ability of the Taiwan Island's resistance. The rest would be swift dominance and massive numbers crushing any resistance.

 

[sicsheep]

lol. NO.

Island have their own strategic depth on the account of you cannot launch an attack until you traverse the sea and land your troop inland.

Individual soldier cannot swim from China to Taiwan and attack using what they have in hand. In term of Military Science. The attacker have to put all its troop in transport (Either sea or air) to transport their own troop to and from the island in order to attack them.

Now, when you take casualty at this point, you lost a bunch of soldier instead of one. If a transport plane got shot down, there goes 40-90 soldiers, if a transport ship got sunk, there goes 500 to 1000 soldier with their equipment or maybe 40 tanks. 1 Missile hitting a transport plane in air which killed 40 guys with the plane than when they unload which would mean the sole casualty is that transport plane itself, that is call "Force Multiplication" and that would give Taiwan an imaginary strategic depth.

Now, another point is, how much you can support for an amphibious operation also count toward the defence depth of an Island, you have 2 million troop ready to cross the channel does not mean you can ship all 2 millions troop together in one go. Say China can ship and support 100,000 troop over the channel every trip (which is greatly estimated Chinese ability as even US can do 250,000) That mean the first 100,000 troop would have to face the whole Taiwanese defence force alone in their section. Then when the second wave arrived, the Taiwanese could reinforce their garrison already. The attacker on an Island Assault is and always going to feed their troop to the enemy in piecemeal.

With Air/Sea interdiction, you can hamper the effort of the defender ability to reinforce and supply their defence facing you, but as said, Chinese Air Force is only slightly better in term of quality and quantity than the ROCAF (With ground air defence) The PLAAF would not enjoy Air supremacy for sure, not even Air Superiority, only maybe Local Superiority.



The LAV?

Actually, there is no question that air superiority will be achieved before landing, you assumption of Chinese just send soldiers on boats is wrong.

first wave of attack will be a mix of cruise missile, rockets, SRBMs, targeting infrastructure, command and control, runways, docks, SAM batteries.

PLAAF will then take care of whatever is already in the air. PLAN will have full control of the straight and conduct firepower preparations around the landing zones.

the only hope for Taiwan is to dig in inland, and preserve their forces.

 

[大汉奸柳传志]

Why is Japan so nervous about China liberating Taiwan?

 

[gambit]

Actually, there is no question that air superiority will be achieved before landing, you assumption of Chinese just send soldiers on boats is wrong.

first wave of attack will be a mix of cruise missile, rockets, SRBMs, targeting infrastructure, command and control, runways, docks, SAM batteries.

PLAAF will then take care of whatever is already in the air. PLAN will have full control of the straight and conduct firepower preparations around the landing zones.

the only hope for Taiwan is to dig in inland, and preserve their forces.

Actually, you are wrong. Seriously wrong.

I know you Chinese on this forum do not have much respect for experience, so what I am saying next are for the benefit of the silent readers and not for you.

- Air Dominance: The ability of an air force to compel other air forces to re-position themselves into inferior/subordinate postures.

- Air Superiority: The ability of an air force to achieve repeated control of contested airspace and if there are any losses, said losses would not pose any statistical deterrence to that achievement.

- Air Supremacy: He flies, he dies.

Let us be generous and say that the PLAAF is sufficiently compelling enough via sheer numbers to achieve dominance over Taiwanese airspace.

But does the PLAAF have enough resources to achieve air superiority ? No. The question must be answered in toto, not piecemeal. If the PLAAF can achieve air superiority in the first day but not the second day, then overall, the PLAAF have not achieve air superiority over Taiwan. In fact, if the PLAAF does not incur losses but Taiwanese air defense is such that the PLAAF must cede control of Taiwanese airspace, no matter how temporarily, then the PLAAF have lost the ability to compel Taiwanese air forces and air defense into inferior/subordinate posture, in other words, the PLAAF lost its air dominance stature.

How is it possible that the PLAAF could lost its ability to compel the Taiwanese air force and air defense into inferior/subordinate posture ?

It is obvious that the PLA cannot commit all of its forces into a war against Taiwan. The borders on land must be guarded. Russia and India are not Canada and Mexico.

Given the progress of technology, it is now estimated and believed that air defense as an adversary is just as lethal to an attacking pilot as an enemy pilot, and if we are to give 'ace' status to Wild Weasels-type pilots, the Americans would have literally dozens of such 'aces'. The PLAAF have no such combat experience.

I would not presume to know how Taiwanese air defense batteries are located, but given the American experience, mountainous terrain offers the worst odds of survival for the attackers. Mountainous terrain restricts ingress, meaning it gives the attacking pilot limited attack routes. Back in Desert Storm, American pilots can attack Iraqi air defense batteries in any direction they chose. Is Taiwan of a desert type terrain ? No. Advantage = the defense.

I have friends in the Combat Controllers community. Without giving away how CCTs do their jobs in directing strikes, how good is the PLA's equivalent of the American CCT in directing ordnance to Taiwanese targets ? I dare say next to nil. This means PLAAF strike fighters will most likely be on their own. So unless the PLAAF can carpet bomb the Taiwanese mountain sides, advantage = the defense.

Does the PLA have enough munitions to sustain at least 90 days of worth of 24/7 assault ?

Back in Desert Storm, no one knew of the QUALITATIVE difference between the Allied air forces and the Iraqi air forces and air defense. Not so between the PLA and the Taiwanese. If anything, the Taiwanese have a qualitative edge in terms of technology and operational experience due to a military alliance with the US.

There are plenty of questions on whether the PLAAF can take control of Taiwanese airspace or not. You just do not want to see them.

 

[sicsheep]

Actually, you are wrong. Seriously wrong.

I know you Chinese on this forum do not have much respect for experience, so what I am saying next are for the benefit of the silent readers and not for you.

- Air Dominance: The ability of an air force to compel other air forces to re-position themselves into inferior/subordinate postures.

- Air Superiority: The ability of an air force to achieve repeated control of contested airspace and if there are any losses, said losses would not pose any statistical deterrence to that achievement.

- Air Supremacy: He flies, he dies.

Let us be generous and say that the PLAAF is sufficiently compelling enough via sheer numbers to achieve dominance over Taiwanese airspace.

But does the PLAAF have enough resources to achieve air superiority ? No. The question must be answered in toto, not piecemeal. If the PLAAF can achieve air superiority in the first day but not the second day, then overall, the PLAAF have not achieve air superiority over Taiwan. In fact, if the PLAAF does not incur losses but Taiwanese air defense is such that the PLAAF must cede control of Taiwanese airspace, no matter how temporarily, then the PLAAF have lost the ability to compel Taiwanese air forces and air defense into inferior/subordinate posture, in other words, the PLAAF lost its air dominance stature.

How is it possible that the PLAAF could lost its ability to compel the Taiwanese air force and air defense into inferior/subordinate posture ?

View attachment 241467

It is obvious that the PLA cannot commit all of its forces into a war against Taiwan. The borders on land must be guarded. Russia and India are not Canada and Mexico.

Given the progress of technology, it is now estimated and believed that air defense as an adversary is just as lethal to an attacking pilot as an enemy pilot, and if we are to give 'ace' status to Wild Weasels-type pilots, the Americans would have literally dozens of such 'aces'. The PLAAF have no such combat experience.

I would not presume to know how Taiwanese air defense batteries are located, but given the American experience, mountainous terrain offers the worst odds of survival for the attackers. Mountainous terrain restricts ingress, meaning it gives the attacking pilot limited attack routes. Back in Desert Storm, American pilots can attack Iraqi air defense batteries in any direction they chose. Is Taiwan of a desert type terrain ? No. Advantage = the defense.

I have friends in the Combat Controllers community. Without giving away how CCTs do their jobs in directing strikes, how good is the PLA's equivalent of the American CCT in directing ordnance to Taiwanese targets ? I dare say next to nil. This means PLAAF strike fighters will most likely be on their own. So unless the PLAAF can carpet bomb the Taiwanese mountain sides, advantage = the defense.

Does the PLA have enough munitions to sustain at least 90 days of worth of 24/7 assault ?

Back in Desert Storm, no one knew of the QUALITATIVE difference between the Allied air forces and the Iraqi air forces and air defense. Not so between the PLA and the Taiwanese. If anything, the Taiwanese have a qualitative edge in terms of technology and operational experience due to a military alliance with the US.

There are plenty of questions on whether the PLAAF can take control of Taiwanese airspace or not. You just do not want to see them.

LOL sure Russia and India are not Canada and Mexico, but Taiwan is 150km off Chinese Coast, it'd be like US invading Cuba,

and if you want to talk experience, ROC air force is just as inexperienced as PLAAF, as their last combat experiences was 1958 Kimmen skirmish.

I dont know if munition will last 90 days of intesive air strike, but i don't think it will come to that. because the success depends on how effective and how fast the US will be able to react, and how can PLA prevent it.

That is why a decade ago, the PLA has shifted their main objective from taking the island itself to A2/AD.

 

[gambit]

LOL sure Russia and India are not Canada and Mexico, but Taiwan is 150km off Chinese Coast, it'd be like US invading Cuba,

Yeah...So who are you to definitively say that the Russia-China and India-China borders will be unguarded ?

and if you want to talk experience, ROC air force is just as inexperienced as PLAAF, as their last combat experiences was 1958 Kimmen skirmish.

Then what make you think the PLAAF can take Taiwanese airspace ?

I dont know if munition will last 90 days of intesive air strike, but i don't think it will come to that. because the success depends on how effective and how fast the US will be able to react, and how can PLA prevent it.

That is why a decade ago, the PLA has shifted their main objective from taking the island itself to A2/AD.

Riiiiight...You are confident that the PLA's leadership will discard the 90 days munition supply understanding. I hope the PLA is infested with fools like you.

 

[sicsheep]

Yeah...So who are you to definitively say that the Russia-China and India-China borders will be unguarded ?

We have almost no military garrison near Russian boarder, and minimum garrison near Tibet Indian boarder. We are not worried either country is gonna invade us.

Then what make you think the PLAAF can take Taiwanese airspace ?

because when experiance are equal, all you have to do is compare everything else?

Riiiiight...You are confident that the PLA's leadership will discard the 90 days munition supply understanding. I hope the PLA is infested with fools like you.

I didn't say PLA have or doesn't have 90 day worth of munition, but if you think it matters then I hope USAF is full of college rejects like you

 

[gambit]

We have almost no military garrison near Russian boarder, and minimum garrison near Tibet Indian boarder. We are not worried either country is gonna invade us.



because when experiance are equal, all you have to do is compare everything else?



I didn't say PLA have or doesn't have 90 day worth of munition, but if you think it matters then I hope USAF is full of college rejects like you

You are correct. Logistics are irrelevant. You win the debate.

 

[sicsheep]

You are correct. Logistics are irrelevant. You win the debate.

no you are correct, 90 days is all that matter, not 80 not 100, 90 is the magical number.

 

[gambit]

Individual soldier cannot swim from China to Taiwan and attack using what they have in hand. In term of Military Science....

We are done here. A Chinese who have never served in the military and lives in the US pretty much declared logistics are irrelevant to the PLA.

 

[sicsheep]

We are done here. A Chinese who have never served in the military and lives in the US pretty much declared logistics are irrelevant to the PLA.

lol damn right we're done, when you cant win a debate, you resort to personal attacks on the poster.

 

[gambit]

lol damn right we're done, when you cant win a debate, you resort to personal attacks on the poster.

There can be no 'winning' against people like you. The 90 days supply principle is established long before you were borned, son...

Quartermaster Activities in World War I - extracted from America'sMunitions 1917-1918

The overseas forces were the particular concern of the Subsistence Division. It was planned to have approximately three months' advance supply of food sent over each month for the number of troops actually sent to France during that month. This was called the initial supply. In addition to this, there was sent over a monthly automatic supply, equivalent to the amount of food the troops already in France would consume during that month. In this way a 90 days' reserve was usually maintained overseas.

When you pretty much discard a proven principle, how can anyone 'win' any debate against such foolishness ?

 

[sicsheep]

There can be no 'winning' against people like you. The 90 days supply principle is established long before you were borned, son...

Quartermaster Activities in World War I - extracted from America'sMunitions 1917-1918

When you pretty much discard a proven principle, how can anyone 'win' any debate against such foolishness ?

lol 90 days of war stock is not the same with "enough munitions to sustain at least 90 days of worth of 24/7 assault". you were born in 1918?

 

[gambit]

lol 90 days of war stock is not the same with "enough munitions to sustain at least 90 days of worth of 24/7 assault". you were born in 1918?

This is why you and your kind deserves to be mocked. What I gave was just ONE example of that principle. Ninety days of deployment takes a toll on a soldier, mentally and physically, even if he is not under combat stress all the time. There is a definite science to this but considering how you Chinese discarded the laws of physics in the past, I see no reasons why you cannot discard other common sense as well.