| Submit your comments on this article | |
| China-Japan-Koreas | |
| Taiwan's Ammunition Shortage | |
| 2005-06-02 | |
June 2, 2005: Taiwan's defenses may fail not because of a lack of weapons, but because of a lack of ammunition. The Taiwanese legislature has been stalled over proposals to buy more (very expensive) new weapons (eight diesel-electric submarines, 12 P-3C Orion maritime patrol aircraft, and a dozen Patriot air and missile defense systems). But now another procurement issue has flared up in Taiwan, the lack of ammunition. Taiwanese media is awash in stories about ammunition shortages. The United States has long warned Taiwan that it needed more missiles, in particular, if the island were to hold out for the 5-10 days it would take for American naval and air forces to arrive. No one ever came right out and said it, but the Taiwanese seemed to assume that the United States would immediately fly in thousands of needed air-to-air, SAM (Surface to Air) and anti-ship missiles once China attacked. This would depend a lot on who will be running the White House when the balloon goes up.
The Taiwanese legislature would have no problem with paying for emergency deliveries of missiles, and they know that the fighting in Iraq has not depleted American inventories of missiles Taiwan would need (air-to-air, SAMs and anti-ship). Perhaps arrangements have already been quietly made to make those air freight deliveries. But these may not be quick enough. Taiwan only has about 900 Sidewinder air-to-air missiles on hand, for over 300 first line jet fighters. China can mass over a thousand fighters on their side of the Taiwan Straights for their initial attack. Taiwanese pilots are better trained, and perhaps expect to take down many of the less modern Chinese fighters with cannon, instead of missiles. That can be dangerous for the attacker, getting in close like that. But with their small supply of missiles (the Taiwanese also have nearly a thousand air-to-air missiles of various other types), cannon will be the only option after a few days. But China has several thousand fighters it can send in to replace losses. In a war of attrition, Taiwan could lose control of the air. Taiwan also has low stocks of artillery ammo, although they justify that by putting lots of effort, and money, into building up their air and naval forces. The Chinese can't walk on water, they must control the air over the Taiwan Straights in order to get troops ashore on Taiwan. But there's always the chance that the Chinese marines will hit the Taiwanese coast before the American missile resupply flights arrive. If you don't have a lot of artillery shells, you can lose the ground war as well. | |
| Posted by:Steve |
| #21 ZF - IMHO it's in our interests to cover the safety of our democratic ally off the coast of the hegemonic wanna-be. We will face each other, sooner or later (unless they collapse). Why not have help. Arm Taiwan. Donate a nuke for Three Gorges Was-A-Dam |
| Posted by: Frank G 2005-06-02 22:09 |
| #20 Should add that sometimes the customer wants the pgm mgr to do this (whether it's the govt pgm mgr or the contractor's) in order to overcome political budget hurdles. In this case since the story says Taiwan can afford the stuff, it's clear that the problem is a political one. |
| Posted by: rkb 2005-06-02 21:25 |
| #19 Old program manager's tactic, SH. Get the customer fired up and spend the money on the big items ... then they pretty much have to go along with an increased budget to cover the expendables .... LOL |
| Posted by: rkb 2005-06-02 21:19 |
| #18 It would not take much to defend the straits from the amphibious force currently available to the PRC. Still it is quite disappointing to get a glimpse of this idiocy from the Taiwanese legislature. Why have their politicians been continuously floating trial balloons about independence when they have no ammunition? |
| Posted by: Super Hose 2005-06-02 21:12 |
| #17 For the Chinese, the ultimate nightmare would be to destroy the Taiwanese air force, send their boats over (four hours transit time) and then get the crap kicked out of their invasion fleet by the USAF. They'd better be sure. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2005-06-02 20:22 |
| #16 There are many options. |
| Posted by: Shipman 2005-06-02 18:38 |
| #15 S: Previously American options were short-range airstrikes from carriers Carriers are used to stage long-range airstrikes - and did so even during WWII, during the Battle of Midway, when the fleets were 300 miles apart, way beyond direct visual range of each other. Afghanistan was, of course a shining example, with strike fighters flying 500 miles each way through Pakistan, from carriers in the Arabian Sea. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2005-06-02 17:43 |
| #14 N.B.: In the D-Day invasion, the assumption was made that if only 10% of the invasion forces survived long enough to establish a beachhead, the invasion would be a success. If the Chinese have made a similar calculation, that they would de facto "win" Taiwan with only 10% of their forces actually landing, then Taiwan, and the US, have a big problem. Practically speaking, if the Chinese can land enough forces by hook or crook, fast enough, even if the US counter-invades, which would be politically extremely difficult, it would be damnably hard to pry the Chinese forces from the Taiwanese population. I am not talking about concentrated enemy forces, but dispersed throughout Taiwan, with emphasis in the cities. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2005-06-02 17:40 |
| #13 Oh, the joys of living at the headquarters of the PLAN East China Sea Fleet! |
| Posted by: gromky 2005-06-02 16:33 |
| #12 One of the unstated advantages of the rise of long-range precision strike weapons is they make it easier for the US to wage war on China. Previously American options were short-range airstrikes from carriers or USAF from bases that may not be available in Korea and/or Japan. |
| Posted by: Stephen 2005-06-02 15:05 |
| #11 the Taiwanese want to make this clash between Uncle Sam and China. Is it in the US interest to defend Taiwan? I think it is in the US interest to supply Taiwan. Risking American lives over Taiwan is a completely different issue. That question becomes academic if China attempts to prevent US resupply and assitance, which I think in the case of an attempt to take over Taiwan, the Chinese would do. |
| Posted by: badanov 2005-06-02 15:00 |
| #10 LH: Pardon, but Clinton sent carriers during the last big straights crisis. I think that's the one area in which I agree with Clinton's foreign policy. In tactical terms, it was nonsensical in terms of how carriers are normally used*, but it was an indication that Uncle Sam was prepared to go to war, if necessary. I don't know if Clinton would have followed through if the Chinese had upped the ante, but it definitely got the Chinese to calm down. * There was a possibility that the Chinese could have damaged them using subs or antiship missiles. When a Chinese submarine was detected in the Taiwan Straits, the carriers scurried out of range - carriers are for battering the enemy while staying out of the range of his weapons. Having them show up in the straits was pure in-your-face symbolism, kind of like a guy with a rifle getting within arms length of a knife fighter. (An actual combat deployment would probably have the carriers positioned hundreds of miles east of the Taiwan Straits). |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2005-06-02 14:43 |
| #9 The Taiwanese want to make this clash between Uncle Sam and China. Is it in the US interest to defend Taiwan? I think it is in the US interest to supply Taiwan. Risking American lives over Taiwan is a completely different issue. I believe the Taiwanese hope to avoid fighting altogether, hoping to leave the fighting to American troops. This is the meaning of repeated cuts to Taiwanese defense expenditures even as Chinese defense spending has skyrocketed. The Taiwanese have also criticized the US for the high cost of the weaponry that is being sold to them, even though many of these weapons systems are being sold at or below cost. If the Taiwanese don't believe enough in their own freedom to commit the resources to defend it, it's not clear that American boys should be risking their lives to defend them. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2005-06-02 14:30 |
| #8 Clinton would take a poll Pardon, but Clinton sent carriers during the last big straights crisis. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2005-06-02 14:28 |
| #7 We're pretty good at math and physics BigJim... |
| Posted by: Hebrew-Barbie 2005-06-02 14:28 |
| #6 BigJim, I know Dimona doesn't appear on any maps but it DOES exist. Sort of like Area 51. |
| Posted by: Rightwing 2005-06-02 13:50 |
| #5 Israel MADE its own nukes. Ironically with material made from a FRENCH supplied nuclear reactor! Oh, how times have changed!! |
| Posted by: Dave 2005-06-02 13:28 |
| #4 Maybe we just gave them to Israel, I don't really know which. |
| Posted by: bigjim-ky 2005-06-02 13:04 |
| #3 Got any proof the US sold nukes to Israel? Proof that doesn't involve a link to moonbat site? |
| Posted by: Laurence of the Rats 2005-06-02 12:48 |
| #2 If kimmie can do it why can't they? |
| Posted by: bigjim-ky 2005-06-02 12:36 |
| #1 Maybe they need a couple of nukes, like the ones we sold Israel. That's the only reason Israel is still in existence. |
| Posted by: bigjim-ky 2005-06-02 12:35 |