Taiwan vs China

WTH is this doing back here?

Look nuke1, I’m closing this because it has nothing to do with either of the 4 categories. If you’d like to start a new topic, but with more specificity, e.g. Chinese missiles aimed at TW, then go right ahead.

Flood, move this silly thing back to General Discussion, please.

quickly,

if possible (to Flood) i’d want to go in the missile forum

Then close your eyes tightly, and when you open them…maybe you’ll be in the flight simulation forum!;)
Nice to have met you, please call again…

Flood

quickly,

if possible (to Flood) i’d want to go in the missile forum, insthead i’d could start a new topic there…

Don’t let us stop you, and please take your acronyms with you.

This is a local forum for local people, you are not welcome here 🙂

quickly,

if possible (to Flood) i’d want to go in the missile forum, insthead i’d could start a new topic there…

OP, the problems is that every one wants to have peace, but the wars still are happenings, and the two China are still arming themselves by decads properly to flight each others. Only few months ago a buisness of 31 billions was made with USa for Taiwan ABM defences..
As a wargame, why not? As you have said, the Ciws vs the cruise missiles.. do you find that this is a question always debated about the navies defence against the SSMs? Let’s èpose that the Taiwan isles is like a “unsinckable carriers”. Like Malta.

perhpas you are right “only ” several hundreds of phalanx are enough BUT the fact remains, that the offense is much more cheaper than the defense.
__________________

I think you missed the point about massing 10k plus missles for an attack, or,for that matter, 10k plus anything.

It won’t happen anyway, no matter what. The Taiwanese, are Chinese, and consider themselves so. This is a disagreement between countrymen. Any kind of military action between the two of them, is detrimental, to say the least, to both of them. Both want reunification, just on their own terms. It’ll happen one of these decades. This conversation is only interesting as a “what if” wargame type of thing. And, I agree with Flood, it probably doesn’t belong here.

I cannot understund the point.. can you elaborate better? If you aren’t interested why post in this topic? I DON’t wish a new war to anyone, this forum should be interested in a such item. I talk about tecnology and tecnic, noyhing else. The fact about the presence in this part of the forum is due by moderator not me, i have posted in the modern aviation

And, being a moderator myself, I also have no idea why this was posted here.
This forum is obviously not all that interested in this subject, it is a modern military something, it is not a general discussion thing – where would you like it moved to?
Thank you for that vote of confidence, Nermal. Please don’t taunt the angry aggressive people since they have a ‘strike first, kill ’em all’ frame of mind.

Flood

Don’t you just love an acronym first thing in the morning ?

Yes, but I can never eat a whole one.

Such a waste………. 🙁

Don’t you just love an acronym first thing in the morning ??????

I cannot understund the point.. can you elaborate better? If you aren’t interested why post in this topic? I DON’t wish a new war to anyone, this forum should be interested in a such item. I talk about tecnology and tecnic, noyhing else. The fact about the presence in this part of the forum is due by moderator not me, i have posted in the modern aviation

Maybe it is because this post is clearly a modern military post and this isn’t modern military, but it could just be that he is a moron and you are anally retentive on the useless facts…?;) – Nermal

Blood thirsty lot on the Flame Wars Forum aren’t they ????

oh,,

“I was merely observing that an obviously aggressive thread had been slung into our quiet corner of the internet, where very few care about THRELs beating GPSs, or CEPs taking out NASDAQs.
Hey! Over there – the pope on a unicycle!!! (~Makes hurried exit~)

Flood”

I cannot understund the point.. can you elaborate better? If you aren’t interested why post in this topic? I DON’t wish a new war to anyone, this forum should be interested in a such item. I talk about tecnology and tecnic, noyhing else. The fact about the presence in this part of the forum is due by moderator not me, i have posted in the modern aviation

Quote;

“I have to think that the Taiwanese probably have a SOSUS type sensor net all around their islands. They probably know of everything, above, and below the water around their island for 100nm. There wouldn’t be a great need to operate SSN’s in that space. The hostile boat would be detected, and a P-3 or a helicopter would be sent out to dispose of it.

As for overwhelming the island defenses with cheap V-1 type rockets, or tommahawk knock offs, The only defence needed against those are radar guided 20 mm vulcan cannons, or bigger, the same type used on ships. It’s a lot easier to deploy and feed hundreds or even thousands of those, than using a patriot type system to try and shoot every one of them down. Patriot systems are better used against ballistic weapons. If you’re going to use rockets in an overwhelming attack, they should be ballistic. If you have 10k plus scud type ballistic weapons deployed for such an attack, you’re very vulnerable to a counter strike that destroys the bulk of those weapons on the ground.

Taiwan ain’t gonna roll over.”

perhpas you are right “only ” several hundreds of phalanx are enough BUT the fact remains, that the offense is much more cheaper than the defense.
__________________

I have to think that the Taiwanese probably have a SOSUS type sensor net all around their islands. They probably know of everything, above, and below the water around their island for 100nm. There wouldn’t be a great need to operate SSN’s in that space. The hostile boat would be detected, and a P-3 or a helicopter would be sent out to dispose of it.

As for overwhelming the island defenses with cheap V-1 type rockets, or tommahawk knock offs, The only defence needed against those are radar guided 20 mm vulcan cannons, or bigger, the same type used on ships. It’s a lot easier to deploy and feed hundreds or even thousands of those, than using a patriot type system to try and shoot every one of them down. Patriot systems are better used against ballistic weapons. If you’re going to use rockets in an overwhelming attack, they should be ballistic. If you have 10k plus scud type ballistic weapons deployed for such an attack, you’re very vulnerable to a counter strike that destroys the bulk of those weapons on the ground.

Taiwan ain’t gonna roll over.

I was merely observing that an obviously aggressive thread had been slung into our quiet corner of the internet, where very few care about THRELs beating GPSs, or CEPs taking out NASDAQs.
Hey! Over there – the pope on a unicycle!!! (~Makes hurried exit~)

Flood

Ok Flood, it’s funny.. something more tecnical?

This looks fun.
So what about if, hmmm lets see…. What about if France demanded that the Channel Islands were returned?
Nah – we are all friends now.
I’ll get back to you.

Flood

A general observation on the thread above….

“Shouting loudest” does not necessarily mean the same thing as “correct“.

Thank you.

turning back to the missile question, i want to say that i have found some news about the Taiwaneses ATBM plans, based on two new radars and 6-9 Pac-3 batteries. So, there are many discussions if this could be a reasonable cost effective idea. Why? the costs are more than 31 $ billions. 1500 for every Taiwanese.
But above all, let’s say that the chieneses start to deploy a similar amount of money for new missiles against taiwan. Let’s say that they autorize to spend 31 billions for new missiles. Let’s say that for every PAc-3 battery taiwaneses have 100 missiles or so, for a total of around 1000 PAC-3.

Well, with the same amount of money relative at the whole ABM taiwanses program, China could made something between 10000 and 30000 ballisitc missiles. So, insthead, they can build between 30000 and 100000 cruise missiles! So it’s clear that this approach to the national defence cannot work. And it’s clear that the old models of missiles , when you hit huge targets, are better than the new models. Why? Because a Scud carries around a ton of warhead, while a M -11 missiles carries only 500 kg. So, at equal price you can have 500 kg or 3-5 tonn of payload. If you aim at a industry or even at a city or an airfield, it’s no important to have a very low CEP. More, a single missile can always be downed or failed, while of 3-5 scuds atleast some could function. It’s something like the airforces still using rockets, CBUs and iron bombs when are already available missiles and LGBs. The reason it’s that not always a costly iper precise weapon is better to whip the target expecially if it is very large or dispersed. the point is that this ABM of Taiwan could only shot down a small part of the missiles that Chine insthead could deploy: even if they are equipped with CS gas warheads, these missiles could be enough to force the taiwaneses to surrender ( somtehing like 10000 tons of gas!).
So, it’s the same for the THEL lasers. It’s fair to see that it can shot down a artillery projectile or rockets, but is it equally good to shot down a whole salvos of that stuffs?
A grad BM 21 battery has 40 rockets fired in less than a minute. A simple 60mm mortar is able to shoot 20 rounds. So, what kind of defence this ABL can assure?
Perhaps every israeli colonizer want to have one over his house, but they aren’t such like freezers or so. They could cost millions. With the same amount of money you can build a bunker, or armour your house with stell plates, or both the things.

This ABM program is cost- effective something like to have to fight some enemy tank, but not with RPG, taht costs 1/10000 of a tank and it’s a cost.effective weapon, but to fight something like 100 tanks with 10 RPGs, that costs like 10 tanks each. Rougly, it’s the cost-effectivity of the ABM concept, expecially for a land like Taiwan that isn’treathened by a weak opponent like Saddam with few dozens scud, but a power like Chine that if wants, can delete the conctract for let’s say 100 flankers (= targets for teh MICA and Amraams of ROCAF pilots) and deploy insthead 2000-5000 SRBMs or 5000-12000 cruises. So we have something like the 40000 V 1-2 of the germans, but more accurate and deadly. almost one for every square km of Taiwan, so even if the y have a cep of 1000 mts who bother? this kind of treaht is simply impossible to seriously counter, and i think, given the quality of the taiwaneses defences that its better to have, for the PRC, more weapons as possible to saturate the defences, because these are lethals from 0 to 30000 mts and so it’s hard to penetrate them. Even with a US cruise like the BGM 109. So id’ go for the “v-1” concept. It’s easy to bouilt a SS weapon even with primitive tecnologies. But it’s impossible do the same as an anti-air weapon, so to shot down a scud you should Have a Patriot battery. And naturaly, a V-1, even if modernized, it’s still much cheaper than a BGM 109.

I have evalued the cost of this V-1, originally 3500 DM ( in WWII: who know how many dollars is that now?), actually rebuilding that could be something 10000-12000 $.

Warhead 1000, guide system 3000, engine 2000, work, materials etc. 5000.

Now a cheap cruise missile can costs more o less: warhead 1000-5000, guide system: 3000-5000 ( i mean a on board computer rougly like Commodore 64 more a gyroscopic, altimeter and a radio-goniometric system ), engine 8000-10000 ( a simple turbojet or turbofan with low materials and tecnology ) others ( plastic, compensed wood, alumium, steel, manworks)3000-4000. Total : 15000-24000$, perhaps i’m wrong and i am happy to have corrected, but it’s clear that the cost is far awya from the typical cruise missiles like US models.

It’s enough to down the level flight from 1000-2000 mts of the V-1 to 30-100 mt., to paint with a simple carbon-iron based paint ( anti IR, perhaps anti radar ), to have a electronic programmable autopilot and a inetrial platfom of medium quality, plus the radio-goniometric antenna, something like the land version of GPS, and sobstitute the pulse-jet ( a ideal target for a IR missile) with a turbo-jet/turbo fan , and design the shape with a stehalt principles, like the wings in wood-plastic and minimal metallic parts, the shape of the air intake modified to reduce the radar response and shielding the turbofan.

Okay, for now i have finish.

OK, this thread has lived out its life already.

Since it hardly fit in the ModMil forum, I’ve moved it here.

Talking about Taiwan with a bunch of
internet numbskulls (I number myself among ths group :D)
would actually make a “difference”?

Internet numbskulls :confused:???

If only you are as numb :p as the people who
had pushed you into a corner every time a debate or an argument arises
over your FC-1’s and your J-10’s, Mr. Dragon.

Hey! Even though you don’t realize it, the truth of the matter however
is this: You were all over the place when you were confronted by people who
contested you. And, from start to finish, you were no contest to them.

Hey! Don’t take my word for it. Take a good look at it yourself.
Anyway, Dragon, I’m glad the Chinese community for which you belong have
somebody of your caliber in communicating in English language.

I mean where would the Chinese ever be
if it weren’t for your quality and your second to none understanding
and knowledge in the English language :o.

Good job, Dragon.

.