Taiwan tests cruise missile

[Musashi_kenshin]

Taiwan tests cruise missile capable of hitting China

"TAIPEI, Taiwan (AP) — Taiwan successfully test-fired a locally developed cruise missile capable of striking southeastern areas of mainland China, a newspaper reported Sunday. The missile — fired from the Jiupeng Missile Base in southern Taiwan — cruised about 300 miles before hitting a dummy target at sea off outlying Green Island, the China Times quoted an unidentified military source as saying. The report did not specify the date the test was conducted. Taiwan's Defense Ministry declined comment.

Taiwan is widely believed to have secretly developed cruise missiles. Military officials have argued such weapons could deter China from launching an attack against the island. However, it may be several years before Taiwan can begin mass production of the missile, the newspaper said. China has deployed hundreds of ballistic missiles along its southeastern coast facing Taiwan. The mainland and the island are divided by the 100-mile-wide Taiwan Strait.

Taiwan and China split amid civil war in 1949, and China has repeatedly threatened to retake the island by force to prevent it from declaring formal independence. Taiwanese military analysts have suggested that the cruise missiles should be deployed on four Kidd-class destroyers that the United States is scheduled to deliver to Taiwan later this year, the report said."


This was run by a lot of different media groups. I'm surprised that no one started a thread on it. Comments?

 

[Musashi_kenshin]

Bump!

Come on guys, surely this is worth some comments. Will Taiwan be able to manufacture many of these? Would the warheads pack enough punch to make them effective? Etc.

 

[adsH]

Frankly MAte i don't see why they had to bother With the R&D hassle they could of Just bought Our Tomahawks. I mean the US has no reservations (specially Prsd.Bush Admin) selling missiles to Taiwan. Any tech Specs.

 

[highsea]

I seriously doubt the US would go that far outside the MTCR guidelines for Taiwan. Hell, we wouldn't even sell them Harpoons until fairly recently. That's the reason they developed their own. Right now, it's just the US and UK, though we would let Australia have them if they wanted some. But it's strictly ABCA stuff. We turned Israel down for Tomahawks also.

Anyway, this new CM is supposed to have a 1000km range, so it puts a lot of China within Taiwan's reach. Taiwan is going to get some new goodies:

Taiwan's cabinet last month approved a revised arms deal with the United States worth almost $15.5 billion after the previous proposal was rejected by parliament.

The arms package over a 15-year period from 2005, pending final approval by parliament, includes eight conventional submarines, a modified version of the Patriot anti-missile system and a fleet of anti-submarine aircraft. (Wire reports)

http://www.japantoday.com/e/?content=news&cat=7&id=339421

 

[adsH]

I didn't realize there was an MTCR guideline govering the Sales to Taiwan(Didn't know it restricts Sales of conventional Missiles). However i did rethink what i said (And Yeah!) Israel was denied Tomahawks. I do remember that. The Uk MOd is involved in the development of the Tomahawk.

 

[highsea]

...Didn't know it restricts Sales of conventional Missile.

Yep. It's why the Yakhont was detuned to 290km range when Russia sold it to India.

The Regime's documents include the MTCR Guidelines and the Equipment, Software and Technology Annex. The Guidelines define the purpose of the MTCR and provide the overall structure and rules to guide the member countries and those adhering unilaterally to the Guidelines. The Equipment, Software and Technology Annex is designed to assist in implementing export controls on MTCR Annex items. The Annex is divided into "Category I" and "Category II" items. It includes a broad range of equipment and technology, both military and dual-use, that are relevant to missile development, production, and operation. Partner countries exercise restraint in the consideration of all transfers of items contained in the Annex. All such transfers are considered on a case by case basis.

Greatest restraint is applied to what are known as Category I items. These items include complete rocket systems (including ballistic missiles, space launch vehicles and sounding rockets) and unmanned air vehicle systems (including cruise missiles systems, target and reconnaissance drones) with capabilities exceeding a 300km/500kg range/payload threshold; production facilities for such systems; and major sub-systems including rocket stages, re-entry vehicles, rocket engines, guidance systems and warhead mechanisms.

The remainder of the annex is regarded as Category II, which includes complete rocket systems (including ballistic missiles systems, space launch vehicles and sounding rockets) and unmanned air vehicles (including cruise missile systems, target drones, and reconnaissance drones) not covered in item I, capable of a maximum range equal to or greater than, 300km. Also included are a wide range of equipment, material, and technologies, most of which have uses other than for missiles capable of delivering WMD. While still agreeing to exercise restraint, partners have greater flexibility in the treatment of Category II transfer applications.

The MTCR Guidelines specifically state that the Regime is "not designed to impede national space programs or international cooperation in such programs as long as such programs could not contribute to delivery systems for weapons of mass destruction." MTCR partners are careful with SLV equipment and technology transfers, however, since the technology used in an SLV is virtually identical to that used in a ballistic missile, which poses genuine potential for missile proliferation.

http://www.mtcr.info/english/guidelines.html

As you noted, the UK is involved in the Tomahawk development, so there is some leeway wrt transfers.

The MTCR is an informal system, it does not have the clout of a formal treaty like the NPT. But participants do take it seriously. A violation wouldn't result in UNSC sanctions, but it would be a very unpopular choice for the country that ignored the agreement, and no doubt there would be some political fallout.

 

[Musashi_kenshin]

Taiwan is going to get some new goodies:

There's a problem with that, mainly that the Opposition parties have already blocked earlier proposals in order to score cheap political points. They may block it again. Hopefully they won't - Taiwan really needs that hardware.

 

[Superbug]

hope they can take care of the guidiance and propulsion problems they experienced last year, and make a real bomb, not a propoganda bomb.

 

[Musashi_kenshin]

hope they can take care of the guidiance and propulsion problems they experienced last year, and make a real bomb, not a propoganda bomb.

Absolutely, the trick is to make something that is effective and can be produced for the right price in large enough numbers. No point in making a great missile that's too expensive or a cheap weapon that doesn't do what it's supposed to.

 

[rolodex]

Guys I dont know if the following news is relevant here but I saw a moderator saying Pac-3 batteries cost 3 million a pc which is not correct (on other thread).

They run abt 4.5 billion dollars in total.


http://163.29.3.66/pda_newsdetail.asp?list_id=12



The Ministry of National Defense will respect the requirements of military buildup planning and troop reconstitution in its planning for the PAC-3 missile, fixed wing anti-submarine aircraft and diesel electric submarine procurement, which has a total price tag of 610.1 billion NTD (not including a ground handling and operating cost of 700 million NTD). This brings the project total to 610.81785 billion NTD. These funds will be provided by a Special Budget allocation. As the entire project proceeds, expenditures will be controlled and verified. The Special Budget allocation is as follows:





6 Sets of PAC-3 missiles, 144.92 billion NTD, period of implementation: 2005-2012.


12 P3-C Orion fixed wing Anti-Submarine Aircraft, 53.042675 billion NTD, period of implementation: 2005-2011.


8 Diesel Electric Submarines, 412.13911 Billion NTD, period of implementation: 2005 to 2019.

Current exchange rate is apx 31 NTD for each USD.
Thanks rgds.

 

[highsea]

...but I saw a moderator saying Pac-3 batteries cost 3 million a pc which is not correct (on other thread).

Rolodex. This is a cruise missile discussion. Next time you wish to raise issue with something, post in the correct thread.

Straits Times, Mar. 22, 2005

Taiwan's military admitted yesterday that it would be incapable of defending against a surprise missile attack from China.

The confession came as the Defence Ministry sought approval for a budget to buy additional Patriot PAC-3 anti-missile batteries from Washington.

With the procurement of more such batteries, 70 per cent of Taiwan's population and 60 per cent of the island's industrial facilities would be under the theatre missile defence system's protection, said Mr Lin Chin-ching, director of the overall evaluation and planning office under the Defence Ministry.

He stressed the need for Taiwan to buy the Patriot PAC-3 as soon as possible. He said it would be able to intercept incoming Chinese missiles, given its accuracy rate of between 83 and 85 per cent.

Taiwan now has three older PAC-2 batteries to protect Taipei and the island's northern region.

Purchase of six PAC-3 batteries would extend the protective umbrella to major cities in northern, central and southern Taiwan, as well as strategic locations, said Mr Lin.

He added that the US was willing to reduce the PAC-3 price to US$3.01 million (S$5 million) per battery, lower than the US$3.2 million it charged the Netherlands and Japan.

The six PAC-3 batteries are part of a US arms package which the military has sought parliamentary approval to buy.

http://taiwansecurity.org/ST/2005/ST-220305.htm

Look at the proceurement costs, and the contracts that the DOD has let for this system. Incidentally, the total program cost is around $6.9 Billion for PAC-3, when separated out from THAAD and GBI.

September 15, 2004

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONTRACTS
ARMY

Lockheed Martin Corp., Grand Prairie, Texas, was awarded on Sept. 13, 2004, a $257,804,996 modification to a firm-fixed-price contract for 153 PAC-3 Missile Four Packs, one MSE Kit, and Ground Support Equipment for the PAC-3 Missile Program. Work will be performed in Grand Prairie, Texas, and is expected to be completed by April 30, 2006. Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This was a sole source contract initiated on Aug. 19, 2003. The U.S. Army Aviation and Missile Command, Redstone Arsenal, Ala., is the contracting activity (DAAH01-03-C-0191).

http://www.defenselink.mil/contracts/2004/ct20040915.html

153 missile 4-packs means 600+ missiles for 250 Million, or just over $400,000 per missile. That's the current cost to the DOD.

PAC-3 Batteries DO NOT cost $750 Million per, and the price has been steadily dropping for the last three years. The last estimate I saw for Taiwan to have complete coverage using PAC-3 is $1.5 Billion. That's total, with spares, training, extra missiles, etc., at two year old pricing levels (extended over the program timeframe of 7 years), which are higher than todays numbers (by almost 5x).

How much Taiwan actually spends depends on how many missiles they buy, ground support equipment, spares, training and support, etc. Do you realize just how much extra is included in this procurement that is not listed here? You can't just take 15 billion and divide it by 8 subs and 6 missile batteries and a dozen Orions and say "that's how much each item costs".

Finally, your math is shaky. If $610 Billion NTD= $15 Billion USD, the ratio wrt the tender is about 40:1, not 31:1. Todays exchange rate is irrelevant in respect to the tender. The money is budgeted over a period of 14 years (7 for the missiles), They are estimating inflation over that timeframe in order to fund the program for that extended period. If they choose to extend the service life, they will have to budget additional money at that time. It is irrelevant to the unit cost in 2005 dollars.

Now back to the topic- Taiwan tests cruise missile

 

[Firehorse]

new article

..As part of its military response to China's buildup, Taiwan has developed a long-range, land-attack cruise missile with sufficient range to strike targets as far away as Shanghai.
There had been speculation that this missile would be paraded Wednesday alongside Taiwan's other advanced hardware, but officials in Taipei said early this week that the weapon was still under development and would not go on display. ..Most analysts expect Taiwan to continue development of the missile, which would have a payload of 400 kilograms, or 882 pounds, and a range of up to 1,000 kilometers, or 621 miles, according to defense analysts and reports in military journals.
Up to 500 of the missiles could be deployed on mobile launchers on Taiwan and on the island's warships, analysts said.
China had about 900 short-range ballistic missiles deployed opposite Taiwan up to the end of last year, according to the Pentagon's annual report on China's military published in May.
Senior governing party officials in Taiwan reject suggestions that the new missile is an offensive weapon. At a time when China's air defenses are improving, they say the missile would give the island's armed forces the option of striking back at key military and strategic targets on the mainland if China launched an attack.
"Defense means we should be able to strike back, at least taking out their military targets to prevent second or third wave attacks at least," said Lai I-chung, director of the Democratic Progressive Party's Department of International Affairs. "Missiles are relatively easy and cheap and will help us meet this need."
Lai added that Washington had been unable to persuade China to abandon its military buildup.
Until the early 1990s, when China's military hardware was largely obsolete by Western standards, Taiwan's more advanced strike aircraft could be expected to carry out that role.
But analysts in Taiwan say that the island's U.S.- and French-made strike aircraft could no longer be assured of penetrating China's air defenses.
In addition to sophisticated surface-to-air missiles, the Chinese Air Force now has hundreds of advanced Russian-designed fighters.
And earlier this year, China unveiled a locally developed fighter that compares favorably with its current Western counterparts, according to military specialists.
As the military balance shifted in China's favor, it was difficult for people in Taiwan to accept the Bush administration's opposition to the new missile, he said. Senior defense officials in Taiwan have argued for decades that the island needs to have the capability to strike targets in China.
China's arms buildup could also pose challenges to the United States if it is drawn into a conflict with Beijing over Taiwan. The commander of American forces in Japan, Lieutenant General Bruce Wright, told The Associated Press earlier this month that China's air defenses were now almost impenetrable to the U.S. F-15 and F-16 aircraft stationed in Asia. http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/10/10/news/china.php

As I said in the New Japanese MPA tread, those LACMs may also be deployed on P-3c. Equip them with air-to air missiles, escort them with fighters and you've got the most survivable deterrant platform, IMHO.

 

[Musashi_kenshin]

As I said in the New Japanese MPA tread, those LACMs may also be deployed on P-3c. Equip them with air-to air missiles, escort them with fighters and you've got the most survivable deterrant platform, IMHO.

Firehorse, I think you're overly obsessed with patrol aircraft. Wasting space on them with air-to-air missiles is not the way to go. In any case I don't think they can mount AMRAAMs, which Taiwan hardly has an abudance of anyway. Plus, escorting them with fighters takes those planes away from other important duties.

If any air-to-ground missiles were used it would be the AGM-84Ls that Taiwan is getting, but in all likeliness they will go on the F-16s. It would cost money to integrate the HF-IIE, which would be pointless given it would make more sense to mount them on the IDFs.

 

[Firehorse]

A2a

Well, the USN P-3s & UK's Nimrods do carry them, in addition to CMs.

An air-to-air view of a P-3C "Orion" aircraft banking to port (left) carrying an AIM-9 "Sidewinder" short range missiles on each outboard wing pylon and a total of four AGM-84 "Harpoon" anti-ship missiles under its wings and fuselage.http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:P3corion.jpg

and

The new wing has two additional hardpoints, providing four weapons pylons for the carriage of Boeing AGM-84 Harpoon anti-ship missiles or AIM-9 Sidewinder air-to-air missiles from Lockheed Martin and Raytheon.
Sidewinder is an all-aspect short-range missile with maximum speed over Mach 2, for defence against hostile aircraft.
http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/nimrod/

No, I'm not obsessed with MPA, but appreciate their utility for a place like Tiawan.

The Harpoon Stand-Off Land Attack Missile (SLAM) launched from the P-3C Orion aircraft provides commanders with the ability to immediately deploy a long range responsive platform that can remain on-station for extended periods of time, retask targets in flight, and deliver up to four over-the-horizon precision weapons in minutes. The same aircraft can then remain on station and continue to target other platforms' missiles by the use of its Electro-Optical, Rapid Targeting System (RTS) and real time data link capabilities.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/p-3-upgrades.htm

By your own logic, 4 LACMs on each P-3 will free 4 F-16s carrying 1 missile each. 1 or 2 Chung Kuo/Mirage escorts are enough for a P-3 without A2A missiles; but a pair of armed P-3s may not even need an escort, especially when within the island's AD zone.

 

[funtz]

Yep. It's why the Yakhont was detuned to 290km range when Russia sold it to India.As you noted, the UK is involved in the Tomahawk development, so there is some leeway wrt transfers.

The MTCR is an informal system, it does not have the clout of a formal treaty like the NPT. But participants do take it seriously. A violation wouldn't result in UNSC sanctions, but it would be a very unpopular choice for the country that ignored the agreement, and no doubt there would be some political fallout.

Well the loop holes are immense,
For example, say you have a new missile which falls in the 400km range/600kg warhead, you can rename the missile, declare that you have reduced the range to 290-299 km, and the warhead to 490-499kg.
You will still be a part of the treaty, and no one will be able to ask you questions.

The very nature of the treaty ensures that there are no engineering checks on the missile, for obvious reasons.

On the qestion of taiwans cruise missile, what on earth are they doing, China is the only nation that they will face hostile action from, the ability of being able to hit targets inside China should have been procured/developed a long time ago.

Infact for its part through some active transfer of technology/equipment through the US of A, it wont be a bad idea to have a missile defense system.
If the US feels that supplying a missile defence network directly is a trouble, provide a advanced detection-tracking capability, and provide them with the knowledge of modifying/developing a missile good enough to be used with the capability. combine that with the patriot's they have, and wallah!! you have a High Altitude Area Defense
if they already have a missile defense system, then obviously i look like a fool.

Untill they can raise the cost of an attack by a margin good enough to deter China, how will they feel secure.

Well yes then is the USA, and those monsters they like to call carrier battle group (damn they huge).

 

[gf0012-aust]

Why are you responding to a post that is 2 years old and is probably the most recent time that the poster was on this forum?

It makes it look as though you are responding to bump your post count.

Considering that Highsea is actually one of the most technically people on here and WAB with respect to technology issues, it would pay for you to also pick your mark in future

Do some searching about Brahmos (and hence the reason for Highseas response) on here (or WAB) before responding again. I for one do not want to go over Brahmos/Yakhont/MTCR technical issues again.

It serves no purpose to revisit threads and issues that have been comprehensively dealt with.

Thread closed.

Well the loop holes are immense,
For example, say you have a new missile which falls in the 400km range/600kg warhead, you can rename the missile, declare that you have reduced the range to 290-299 km, and the warhead to 490-499kg.
You will still be a part of the treaty, and no one will be able to ask you questions.

The very nature of the treaty ensures that there are no engineering checks on the missile, for obvious reasons.

On the qestion of taiwans cruise missile, what on earth are they doing, China is the only nation that they will face hostile action from, the ability of being able to hit targets inside China should have been procured/developed a long time ago.

Infact for its part through some active transfer of technology/equipment through the US of A, it wont be a bad idea to have a missile defense system.
If the US feels that supplying a missile defence network directly is a trouble, provide a advanced detection-tracking capability, and provide them with the knowledge of modifying/developing a missile good enough to be used with the capability. combine that with the patriot's they have, and wallah!! you have a High Altitude Area Defense
if they already have a missile defense system, then obviously i look like a fool.

Untill they can raise the cost of an attack by a margin good enough to deter China, how will they feel secure.

Well yes then is the USA, and those monsters they like to call carrier battle group (damn they huge).