The announcement renewed debate over the need for a heavy MBT, said a Defense Ministry source, “but they are cheap and available now.” The deal would include refurbishment, but not an upgrade, he said. In 2011, Vice Defense Minister Chao Shih-chang was quoted by the local media saying the Army needed 200 new MBTs.The highlighted sentences brings into focus the MBT in the Pacific region, but it must be noted that Indonesia, Australia, Singapore, Japan, S. Korea and China all have either purchased or have in development heavy main battle tanks.
Since the 1996 Taiwan Strait missile crisis, Taiwan has focused on improving air-sea battle capabilities, and the Army has watched its grip on power and influence slip since the end of the Cold War. The Army maintained a large invasion force to retake mainland China during the Cold War.
Local defense analysts argue there are other pragmatic reasons for not procuring bigger and heavier MBTs. The island is composed of rugged interior mountains notorious for landslides. The coasts are either rice paddies, fish farms or are urbanized. Coupled with narrow roadways and anemic bridges, the island seems an unlikely home for a 60-ton tank 12 feet wide.
But back to Taiwan. The CM-11 is unique. It has the hull of the M60 and the turret of the M48. Mixed in with all this is suppose to be a world class fire control system and other first rate electronic bits. On some vehicles ERA tiles have been seen and it would appear that this is an adequate vehicle for their defense needs.
What really got me about this old article is what it only glances at...the CM-32 Snow Leopard and what that could mean in this debate.
The armor game is changing. How Taiwan solves this problem will be instructive. Some of the same issues they face in defense will affect the US in the offense.
I focus on the USMC but it must be asked. How will a future US Army GCV perform in Asia once the Corps kicks in the door? How will it navigate across bridges that struggle to carry 60 ton tanks when it weighs in at 70 or 80 tons? If we solve the strategic mobility problem will it bog down because of its tactical mobility limitations?
I watch US Army specific forums and they don't seem to be having that discussion. I'll keep watching.
I hate to tell you this. Your favorite project MPC wasn't even mentioned once (!) in the Marine Corps Modernation written statement during Tuesday's Congressional hearing.
ReplyDeletei already wrote a post on what i think is going on with the Marine Corps amor. we're going to get a slightly upgraded AAV and they'll call it a day. so no. what you're telling me isn't a surprise at all. quite frankly i don't care as long as General Dynamics doesn't get the contract. but on a side note the MPC will be seen as a missed opportunity.
DeleteI really missed EFV. We shouldn't just kill it right off. Chinese military now possess the most advanced amtracks with water jet propulsion, and we have to put up with that dinosaur AAV for many decades to come! how pathetic.
ReplyDeleteactually they don't. the photos that spread all over the internet of the CHINESE AAV water planning was all photoshopped. they do about 5 knots in the water and on land they're dogs.
DeleteTaiwan may need some Abram's tanks but I'd bet the wheeled vehicles with AT missiles and a good turret/gun sight system would do better. Speed and cross brigde capabilities as well as quiet would be a better deal.
ReplyDeleteTaiwan won't do any invading of China so their Military's mission is defensive from the word go.
Those Swedish S tanks come to mind.
US Army have approx. 5000 M1 tanks in the stock and less than 1500 are active. We should give away some excessive tanks to Taiwan and only charge them for conditioning and upgrade. In this way we can keep the assembly line warm while helping out our ally.
ReplyDeleteThe US is the only country willing to sell to Taiwan, so it limits the options because we only have Abrams to offer. I'm sure they'd love the Japanese Type 10 at 48 tons, but it isn't going to happen anytime soon.
ReplyDeleteWhat would be more effective, perhaps, is selling them hundreds of M109s and MLRS with guided munitions. Engage from over the horizon, plunging fire from above, terminally guided by Millimeter Wave Radar submunitions, cluster munitions, Thermobaric, etc. Ships, landing craft, amphib craft are all fair game.
Leave the direct fire to the CM-11, CM-32 and Javelin teams.
Taiwan developed its own long range rocket artillery. The Thunderbolt-2000 is compatible with 227mm rockets, we should sell them large amount of GMLRS rounds with terminal seeker. Let the Chinese military tastes its own anti access/area denial medicine and see how that feels. Every military tactic is a double edged sword, no excpetion here.
DeleteThe Dutch firm RDM has two 52 caliber versions of the M109 that are offered.
DeleteOne has the 155mm howitzer from the AS90, the other has a 52 caliber version of the standard PzH2000's Rheinmetall howitzer.
That would be a fantastic upgrade for Taiwanese M109's. If they had 300-400 M109s with 52-caliber tubes and a few dozen more Thunderbolt MLRS, I'd hate to be trying to land on a Taiwanese beach with anything heaving than a beach towel.
Considering all of the miscellaneous artillery pieces the ROC Amy has, being able to standardize them with an extremely capable platform might be attractive.
Add some breach-loading 120mm mortar turrets to the CM-32 and the ROC Army could put so much metal on a landing zone, an Army pay dearly.
US is hesitant to sell advanced weaponry to Taiwan for possible tech leak to PRC. Taiwan's economy is increasingly integrated with mainland China and becoming less dependent on US. Who knows what will happen in the next decade or so. A peaceful unification is not entirely out of picture.
ReplyDeleteSame dilemma is also facing other countries in the region. If you read Australia’s newly published defense white paper carefully, you can sense Aussie's uneasiness about potential conflict between US and China. Australia’s economy well being and her future prosperity are totally dependent upon Chinese economy. Eventually it will weaken the military alliance with US.
i beg to differ. Australia supplies China with raw resources. if the world economy limps along then so does the Chinese economy and by extension the Australian economy. the double digit growth that China has been experiencing is slowing down, many think it was artificial anyway but the bigger issue is can China afford NOT to have double digit growth. the Chinese people are restless and are no big fans of the government. they're really quite like us, they nationalistic as hell when they consider the nation slighted but they view their own government with almost contempt.
Deletelast but not least the US has nations practically throwing themselves at us. Bush II as an idiot but if he was in office you would see new alliances being formed, the US back in the Philippines and exercises happening even more than you see now.
the reason?
because China is being aggressive and is seeking to settle decades, in some cases centuries old disputes. between the mess with Japan over the islands, ditto with the Philippines, ditto with S, Korea to the border dispute with India we're sitting pretty when it comes to allies to hold the line against China.
I guess in retrospect if army overcame not invented here syndrome and staunchly insisted on domestic sourcing, we would have PzH2000 and Puma IFV already in service instead of wasting billions on dead end projects Crusader and FCS. We won’t be even talking about ground modernization now.
ReplyDelete