recommended defense postures for the "nice" Pacific Rim countries

[Angrybk]

Obviously they will destroy their foes with Murrican style cultural superiority (K-Pop and Hyundais for the win!)

But barring that -- I think the current thinking about the perhaps-upcoming US vs China war tends to view it as a 1v1 thing, completely ignoring Japan, Worst Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, hell, toss in Australia, maybe even Vietnam, I cud go on and on. These are countries that have their shit together (probably more than most Western countries), US and Western Europe like them a lot because culture and because they don't act like assholes, and they have more reason to be freaked out by China than we do. What's the best defense posture for those countries -- more Navy and Air Force? Does it make sense for them to field up armored divisions etc.?

[futon]

ROK has to put priority on DPRK so that limits what they can do.

For all the blunder by internal US defense, they still have primary source of offensive power and inteligence.

Japan is going to release a new 5-year procurement plan that catches up in some of these things and pays for it by pushing defense spending to around 1.7% from the current 0.95.

While Vietnam have their own concerns and points of tension with PRC, they've been less integrated with the main camp (US, Japan, Australia, and so). In some ways, they're a bit like India. Concerns with PRC but still more or less going down the middle. The Philippines has been more interacting with the main camp. Sizable US training does occur with the Philippines, not the case with Vietnam. For non-US activity, joint activities between Philippines and Japan is also going up. Although it should go much faster then it currently if asking what's the best defense posture. But is it worth being a hard fixture of defense for the Philippines is another matter.

As for armored divisions, if it could be offloaded into Taiwan quickly, then it could serve a deterrant role I think, combined with sufficient anti-drone stuff naturally.

Edited November 29, 2022 by futon

[Josh]

Taiwan should adopt a more asymptomatic stance. Its navy is forfeit in the first hour and its air force likely gets eaten over a slightly longer time frame due to hardening. Sea mines, truck mounted AShMs, mobile AShBMs, and mobile medium ranged SAMs and MANPADS should be their primary defense. Realistically they can’t win a war alone, all they can do is make themselves hard to digest. On land they desperate need to update their artillery; I’d go for a modern wheeled 155mm but I wouldn’t turn down M109 cast offs if they could get more modern versions than they have. HIMARS,HIMARS, HIMARS, and the longest ranged rockets the US is willing to sell. And integrate short ranged, inexpensive UAVs directly with the tube arty units so they can form their own local kill chain absent higher echelons. Additionally I’d want offensive weapons that tie down Chinese air assets and damage their home turf as a deterrent. Truck mounted cruise missiles but also loitering munitions-they have their own Harop/Shahed clone; they just need to make thousands of them and hundreds of trucks to launch them from.

A lot of this they are already working on - they have several types of cruise missiles that can hit ships or the main land. But they need a lot more and they need to stop pretending their air and naval assets have any useful shelf life. Their artillery park is especially pathetic.

[BansheeOne]

Largely agree, except that a robust submarine capability would be a good investment. Taiwan has of course been desperately trying to modernize its small and old fleet in the face of Western unwillingness to supply them, but I think they're designing past their needs with the IDS state-of-the-art blue-water project they have going now. A more numerous fleet of modern coastal subs, something like an updated German Type 206 or even the Iranian or North Korean minisubs which can lurk around their shores and blow up landing task forces, would be a better fit IMO. Essentially the approach Germany and Japan went for at the end of WWII with the Type XXIII and Ha-201 class respectively. Obviously going forward, UUVs could take some of that mission, too.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrasta-class_submarine

http://www.hisutton.com/World-Small-Submarines-Compared.html

[Josh]

I think it’s too late to try to build submarines now given the small numbers and vast number of PLAN escorts, but they do have a program. Something like the Orca XLUUV would be far more useful and could be produced at scale. The long endurance could be used to keep a large percentage at sea all the time. Even if they were only capable of mine laying, that would be a far better investment. The Orcas are only ~50 million USD and can carry four tons of stores for a couple months.

Edited November 29, 2022 by Josh

[futon]

It sounds a bit rash to disregard conventional navy warships. It'll still be the navy to keep watch for and respond to any kind of grey zone activity and be a fleet in being back up for the coast guard. These are constant needs. The USN can't be doing these more mundane tasks. Lots of problems may emerge if the navy was suddenly to disappear. A similar role for fighter aircraft. If there's nothing to scramble up to meet approach PRC military aircraft, then it may create openings that make initiating an actual Taiwan contingency easier or simple salami slice to a new level of new norm of ever closer PRC aircraft flight.

Maybe they ought to consider giving it up but they have an interest in other island features a bit further such as the Pratas islands and Itu Aba so some naval power puts power behind their administration that is meaningful in any case towards not just China in a non-total war situation but also with South East Asia countries.

Finally, if it is looking like there's a PRC military build up and getting rrady to pounce, Taiwan naval assets could disperse ahead of time. If defense mechanisms can be established with other countries, than those naval assets can disperse to those countries so that they can deploy from more secured areas as the contingency gets underway. Places like Guam, Japan, and perhaps even Australia or Singapore. 

Naturally, no matter how well Taiwan prepares its defences. It needs international support. Without it, the PLAN would be able to make a blockade. But if assets on the lower south-west Ryukyu islands engage PLAN vessels such as Type 12 missiles, then it becomes much harder for the PLAN to carry out a blockade of Taiwan.

[Josh]

1 hour ago, futon said:

It sounds a bit rash to disregard conventional navy warships. It'll still be the navy to keep watch for and respond to any kind of grey zone activity and be a fleet in being back up for the coast guard. These are constant needs. The USN can't be doing these more mundane tasks. Lots of problems may emerge if the navy was suddenly to disappear. A similar role for fighter aircraft. If there's nothing to scramble up to meet approach PRC military aircraft, then it may create openings that make initiating an actual Taiwan contingency easier or simple salami slice to a new level of new norm of ever closer PRC aircraft flight.

Maybe they ought to consider giving it up but they have an interest in other island features a bit further such as the Pratas islands and Itu Aba so some naval power puts power behind their administration that is meaningful in any case towards not just China in a non-total war situation but also with South East Asia countries.

Finally, if it is looking like there's a PRC military build up and getting rrady to pounce, Taiwan naval assets could disperse ahead of time. If defense mechanisms can be established with other countries, than those naval assets can disperse to those countries so that they can deploy from more secured areas as the contingency gets underway. Places like Guam, Japan, and perhaps even Australia or Singapore. 

Naturally, no matter how well Taiwan prepares its defences. It needs international support. Without it, the PLAN would be able to make a blockade. But if assets on the lower south-west Ryukyu islands engage PLAN vessels such as Type 12 missiles, then it becomes much harder for the PLAN to carry out a blockade of Taiwan.

I wouldn't retire their existing surface fleet but I wouldn't bother adding to it.

[BansheeOne]

Obviously you'll also need a reasonably well-equipped surface navy just to ensure your souvereignty below the threshold of all-out war, or China will just sail its warships through Taiwanese waters and cause disruptions at will. If you have that, you also need to give them a fighting chance if the balloon really goes up. So we're talking corvette to frigate range. Their Tuo Chiang class looks like a good approach, not unlike the Swedish Visbys but packing an Israeli kind of punch. Don't see much use in building DDGs like the old Kidds they took over.

[Rick]

3 hours ago, BansheeOne said:

Largely agree, except that a robust submarine capability would be a good investment. Taiwan has of course been desperately trying to modernize its small and old fleet in the face of Western unwillingness to supply them, but I think they're designing past their needs with the IDS state-of-the-art blue-water project they have going now. A more numerous fleet of modern coastal subs, something like an updated German Type 206 or even the Iranian or North Korean minisubs which can lurk around their shores and blow up landing task forces, would be a better fit IMO. Essentially the approach Germany and Japan went for at the end of WWII with the Type XXIII and Ha-201 class respectively. Obviously going forward, UUVs could take some of that mission, too.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrasta-class_submarine

http://www.hisutton.com/World-Small-Submarines-Compared.html

As far as I know, historically, no submarine squadron/flotilla has successfully be able to defend a coast. One could consider the  HMS Conqueror during the Falklands War an exception.  

[TrustMe]

2 hours ago, Rick said:

As far as I know, historically, no submarine squadron/flotilla has successfully be able to defend a coast. One could consider the  HMS Conqueror during the Falklands War an exception.  

Iran has a number of costal submarines types designed to defend it's coast.

[Angrybk]

I'm a little surprised that there hasn't been talk about a SEATO-type alliance, at least involving Japan/Australia/Worst Korea/NZ/Taiwan/Singapore. That would probably be enough to fight China on an equal basis even without US involvement. 

[Strannik]

18 hours ago, Angrybk said:

I'm a little surprised that there hasn't been talk about a SEATO-type alliance, at least involving Japan/Australia/Worst Korea/NZ/Taiwan/Singapore. That would probably be enough to fight China on an equal basis even without US involvement. 

We have a winner!

[Murph]

Well heck, K-Pop and K-Dramas have already taken over my household, we surrendered to the K-Wave years ago....

[futon]

On 12/1/2022 at 9:32 AM, Angrybk said:

I'm a little surprised that there hasn't been talk about a SEATO-type alliance, at least involving Japan/Australia/Worst Korea/NZ/Taiwan/Singapore. That would probably be enough to fight China on an equal basis even without US involvement. 

Heh, a seasoned TNer is "a little surprised". Why surprise at all?

[Huba]

Quite related to the subject I guess:

 

[JWB]

Leaked documents reveal Russia’s plan to invade Japan (msn.com)

[Argus]

Interesting to note the Japanese Ambassador was among the speakers are a recent university conference on AUKUS in Canberra.  

[futon]

On 12/5/2022 at 2:25 PM, Argus said:

Interesting to note the Japanese Ambassador was among the speakers are a recent university conference on AUKUS in Canberra.  

I wouldn't have noticed, here's what he said when there. https://www.google.co.jp/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.au.emb-japan.go.jp/files/100420199.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwivqdqtyef7AhWpLqYKHd-cAygQFnoECBMQAQ&usg=AOvVaw3Loj3Db3PefdIfvcLTltuG

[futon]

Two F-15Js arrived at Clark Air Base.

 

[On the way]

On 11/28/2022 at 9:12 PM, Angrybk said:

Obviously they will destroy their foes with Murrican style cultural superiority (K-Pop and Hyundais for the win!)

But barring that -- I think the current thinking about the perhaps-upcoming US vs China war tends to view it as a 1v1 thing, completely ignoring Japan, Worst Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, hell, toss in Australia, maybe even Vietnam, I cud go on and on. These are countries that have their shit together (probably more than most Western countries), US and Western Europe like them a lot because culture and because they don't act like assholes, and they have more reason to be freaked out by China than we do. What's the best defense posture for those countries -- more Navy and Air Force? Does it make sense for them to field up armored divisions etc.?

The reason that Asian countries are not relevant in a US vs China fight is because, its one on one between the 2 of them. Most Asian countries have no quarrel with China, and in fact, they have bigger military concerns on their plates.

South Korea - The only defense posture they need to adopt is one of how to defeat a North Korean attack. China does not factor into their threat scenario at all, unless China plans to supplement a N Korean attack with massive numbers of their own infantry or plans to replenish NK war supplies. US presence on their soil backs them us. But China knows the S Koreans are not hostile to them, and US forces presence in S Korea is to counter a N Korean attack. Not used as a base to attack China. China probably secretly welcomes US presence in S Korea in order to deter N Korea from an assault. N Korea attacking the south would be a diplomatic nightmare for China.

Japan - Same reason as above. Japan's main concern is the crazy guy in N Korea. They are sick and tired of him firing his ballistic missiles over their territory. Next to them, they would love to retake those Kuril islands taken by the Russians at the end of WW2. Given the incompetence of the RUssian military in Ukraine, I am not sure the Japanese are not thinking about grabbing them back if shit starts happening. China is way down on their list of threats. There is no posture change needed against China.

Taiwan - Their main threat is China. But that has been the same threat for the last 50 years. And their posture against China is the same. "We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, yada yada". The Taiwanese themselves don't consider a China invasion as a real possibility. They know the Chinese do not have the capability to transport 500000 troops over the straits in a short period of time. They are so confident of this they have abolish their own conscription. For China to send their soldiers over to kill fellow chinese, with many of these soldiers being the only child in their families, is like committing political suicide. The outcry in China will make the protest in Russia over the Ukraine war, look like a small demonstration. 

Philippines - They don't have a posture vis a vis China. They are so poor, and corrupted that their country is basically undefended. They can't afford a posture, they don't have enough money for that.

Vietnam - Deep down, although the have fought one war, the Viets and China are still kindred communist countries. China economic investment in Vietnam is huge. Vietnam does not consider China a threat at all, even with the dispute over the Spratlys. Vietnam rightly wants to stake a claim there. But whether they get anything out of it or not, its not important to them. The country is rapidly modernizing, and money is king. China as a military threat does not even warrant a posture. 

Singapore - The only posture these comedians should have is neutrality. They are the most heavily country on earth per sq mile. But they are paranoid. No one is interested in them and the best thing they can do is declare neutrality.

Malaysia and Indonesia -  2 muslim countries which on paper should view China with a cautious eye given the Chinese treatment of its Muslim minority. There is not much they can do if China wants to be aggressive to them. They neither have the budget, or ability to develop a posture against China that would remotely deter China.

 

 

[futon]

Japan is considering almost tripling the number of units in its Self-Defense Forces equipped with ballistic missile interception capabilities in the country's remote southwestern islands by the end of fiscal 2031, a draft of the plan has shown.

The plan is expected to be included in the government's National Defense Program Guidelines, a 10-year defense buildup policy to be updated by the end of the year, as the nation focuses on boosting its defense capabilities in southwest Japan, a strategically important area in light of the Chinese military's muscle-flexing in the East China Sea.

According to the draft obtained by Kyodo News on Sunday, Japan plans to increase the number of SDF ballistic missile defense units in the Nansei Islands, an island chain stretching southwest from Kyushu toward Taiwan, up to 11 from the current four by the fiscal year that ends in March 2032.

...

https://english.kyodonews.net/news/2022/12/2a48b00fffdc-japan-plans-to-almost-triple-missile-defense-units-in-remote-islands.html

[Josh]

I was going to say the one exception to that list is Japan. They seem at least if not more concerned with Chinese militarism than Bestest Korea.

[futon]

Points on next stage Australia-Japan defense. 

https://www.foreignminister.gov.au/minister/penny-wong/media-release/tenth-japan-australia-22-foreign-and-defence-ministerial-consultations

[Argus]

On 12/8/2022 at 12:12 AM, futon said:

I wouldn't have noticed, here's what he said when there. https://www.google.co.jp/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.au.emb-japan.go.jp/files/100420199.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwivqdqtyef7AhWpLqYKHd-cAygQFnoECBMQAQ&usg=AOvVaw3Loj3Db3PefdIfvcLTltuG

I think the video is a little more expressive than the transcript, he's on at about 2:35, makes a second smaller set of remarks at 2:55 which I find a little more candid, and answers a question just after that at about 2:57.


 

[futon]

1 hour ago, Argus said:

I think the video is a little more expressive than the transcript, he's on at about 2:35, makes a second smaller set of remarks at 2:55 which I find a little more candid, and answers a question just after that at about 2:57.


 

Video and transcript, best of two worlds for convenience and seeing all the nuances. This video looks like it's of the whole segment. It'll have to wait but here it is.

 

Edited December 20, 2022 by futon