Posted on 06/12/2011 9:37:53 PM PDT by sukhoi-30mki
Taiwan's AH-64 deal: a knife for a gunfight
By Greg Waldron on June 13, 2011
Some years back I toured the USS Nimitz . Somebody in the group asked the officer showing us around about the RIM-7 Sea Sparrow launcher. "If it ever gets to the point we need to use that, we're already dead," he replied.
The same could be said of last week's news that Taiwan will purchase 30 Boeing AH-64 Block III attack helicopters from the United States. There is little doubt about the Apache's effectiveness in combat over the last two decades in conditions where its western users have aerial supremacy. Providing more Apaches to Taiwan, however, is somewhat like providing a knife to a man who needs a rifle.
In the (extremely hypothetical) scenario where China was committed to using force to take the island, it would strive to achieve aerial superiority, if not outright supremacy, before launching its invasion fleet across the Straits of Taiwan. This is outlined in a recent Rand Report, Shaking the Heavens and Splitting the Earth.
How well the Apache would perform its ground attack role in sky filled with Chinese fighters is questionable. Effective? Perhaps. A game changer? No way.
What Taiwan really needs (wait for it) from the USA are the 66 Lockheed Martin F-16 C/Ds it has been seeking since 2006. Notwithstanding the support of many congressmen for the deal, Washington is simply too wary of China to sign off. According to some industry observers Washington is also concerned about China gaining access to the technology in these aircraft.
Meanwhile China continues building its fleet of J-10s - with photos emerging recently of the J-10B with what looks like an AESA radar - and J-11s. Last week it confirmed the existence of the Shi-Lang, its new aircraft carrier. It also has plenty of missiles capable of hammering Taiwan's airfields. And then there is the developmental Chengdu J-20, which some view as a long range strike aircraft.
Against all this Taiwan fields its aging F-16 A/Bs, Mirage-2000s, Ching-kuos, and F-5s. It is a fleet badly in need of renewal, but what outsider will dare risk China's ire?
A quick browse of the weekend's news shows China has yet to pound its fist on the table in response to the Apache deal. If it remains true to form it will issue a blistering response and suspend military ties with the USA for a while. But behind the bluster its military brass will know that the Apache deal has done little to change the balance of power in the Taiwan Straits.
They will merge, and soon.
I once took out two MiG-29’s using an AH-1 Huey-Cobra in a dogfight, in a game of “Gunship 2000.” B-)
They will merge, and soon.
/// i think you are correct. and China knows Obama won’t stop them, so they might try to resolve this before 2012...
“Washington is also concerned about China gaining access to the technology in these aircraft.”
///
but this, is baloney. We ARE giving those F-16’s to Pakistan, and Pakistan is China’s new best buddy.
(and who thinks Pakistan didn’t let China look at that Seal 6 chopper before sending it back?)
“There must be hundreds of commuter flights from Taiwan to China every day.
They will merge, and soon”
______________________________________________________________________________________
I wouldn’t bet on it. But many “free trade at all costs” CEOs ,in this country, pray for it every day. They pray for it while waiting for this quarters bonus check to arrive by
direct deposit. Because when owning 5 vacation homes is just not enough, you have to maximize profit in every way imaginable.
Just re-read the RAND study from a while back that pitted American F-22s (with magic AMRAAM missiles that NEVER missed) against Chinese Flankers (with hopeless AMRAAM-SKI missiles that ALWAYS missed), and how the American Raptors, even with their pK 1.0 missiles against pK 0.0 Flankers, lost (when they expended all their AMRAAMs and 'winders, and the surviving Flankers - of which there were many - shot down the refueling tankers and the Raptors eventually ran out of fuel and crashed into the ocean). An even more interesting slide from that presentation was the one that assumed that the Chinese did not attack any American airbases and/or aircraft carriers, and thus the 6 Raptors were not dozens of Raptors, PLUS F-35s and F/A-18s ...and the result was the same! Flankers dying left right and center, but enough surviving to win! How is Taiwan supposed to hack it with 66 F-16s, even if those F-16s get the pixie-dust magical pK missiles assumed in the RAND study (and in the real world, even against non-maneuvering non-jamming unaware targets, real world AMRAAM pK is not that high as shown in Bosnia and Iraq ....and I doubt the Chinese would make it as easy as Saddam's pilots, and even if they would that would be a very dangerous assumption to make). I still think a smattering of advanced DE subs (which Taiwan will probably never get ...but they should make something), a good number of advanced programmable anti-shipping mines, plus a hundred plus supersonic anti-ship missiles (which Taiwan is smart enough to be making ...but I don't know the numbers), with a whole lot of Javelin-class anti-tank missiles (for use in coastal areas against in-coming ampbhibious troop transports when they are a mile or two from shore) may be better than 66 (or even 166) F-16s. That seems to be a better anti-China solution that Vipers that would have been perfect 10 years ago but are currently obsolete in an anti-China solution.
My $0.02.
were not = were now
Wouldn’t they be most useful in the case of a Chinese landing situation like D-Day 6th of June?
For the Chinese to attempt a D-Day landing on Taiwan’s beaches they would have sanitized the air, crippled air-defense radars and systems, and mucked up any airbases (and probably even highways that could be used as makeshift airbases, even considering that the F-16 is no Gripen when it comes to that). In such a scenario, wouldn’t several hundred chaps with Javelin-class missiles be a greater deterence to beach landings than F-16s?
“I once took out two MiG-29’s using an AH-1 Huey-Cobra in a dogfight, in a game of “Gunship 2000.” B-)”
Let’s hope people reading this realize that attack hellicopters equipped with advanced air to air missiles are highly mobile easy to hide anti-aircraft platforms. Hellicopters shooting down high performance jets does not have to only be a game playing fantasy.
Anti-aircraft configured hellicopters can hide on the ground conserving fuel, ready to pop up, fire their missiles when alerted by the early warning network, and go back to hiding in a different location.
Should the need ever arise, there is no doubt hellicopters properly equipped will decimate enemy fighter attacks. Just think of the hellicopters as an anti-aircraft site that can relocate at 150 knots and hide behind a barn or in a ravine.
The money quote.
There must be hundreds of commuter flights from Taiwan to China every day.
No...none.
Tour groups from the Mainland are common for the last year. Private visits from the Mainland begin on 27 Jun 2011.
They will merge, and soon.
Oh really?...when will that happen?
Well said, Spetznaz.
If they’re not ready by then they may have to buy the election for him.
///
ouch! you’re right! ...i didn’t think of that.
even at a billion, it would be a bargain.
with enough money and enough fraud...
My $0.02.
///
wow. that’s about the most impressive 2 cents i’ve read in a long time...
puts a whole different perspective on it for me.
Death by a thousand cuts. F-22s, carrying whatever missiles and ammunition, only add up to so many possible kills. All the aircraft the enemy needs to have are more than the F-22s can shoot down and it is game over. We simply didn’t build that many fighters.
Have the first wave be thousands of UAVs with air-to-air missiles. Eventually some of them will get close enough to an F-22 to get some sort of sensor lock.
I wish someone could upload/link that RAND study to this thread. A very very very interesting powerpoint presentation.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/files/2008_RAND_Pacific_View_Air_Combat_Briefing.pdf
http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monographs/2009/RAND_MG888.pdf
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.