China’s ‘Liaoning’ aircraft carrier attracted a lot of attention on Wednesday last week, when it sailed to its home port via the Taiwan Strait. It is expected that in the next 10 years, China will launch two new aircraft carriers into service, and equipped with new carrier-based aircraft, they will have full combat capabilities; therefore Chinese battle group activities in the Taiwan Strait will become routine. With its limited resources, Taiwan’s defense strategy needs a complete overhaul to be able to respond.
Let us first address the Liaoning. Although it was on a training mission, the main purpose at that stage was to establish and correct various parameters, establish operating guidelines and technical orders, and to provide observation and calibration services for China’s marine surveillance satellites and its over-the-horizon Tianbo (天波) radar. These are intended to provide the basis for follow-up development and preparation of the naval force.
At the same time, factors like the flight deck coating for withstanding high-temperature jet exhaust, decks, hangar ground handling equipment, night takeoff and landing devices and so on all require many voyages to be able to quickly verify, research and improve, and all these are the main training subjects of the Liaoning battle group. In spite of the training purpose, each voyage the Liaoning makes stirs East Asia, which has already made the aircraft carrier politically and strategically significant.
Next, the main point: Taiwan Strait defense. Air power is the key to Taiwan’s defense, but it needs to consider the resources invested, the development of modern military technology and that air power consists of both “command of the air” and “air defense.” The traditional concept of air power is mainly based on using the air force to defend and control the airspace.
However, given its limited resources, Taiwan does not have sufficient resources to support a US-style air power; the European model of air power is more suitable for Taiwan. NATO’s air power strategy using mobile air defenses as its backbone also provides a useful reference.
This is mainly because, first, the diversity of air power elements, offensive uncrewed aerial vehicles and new air defense systems have provided Taiwan with more options. Second, a medium-range air defense system, which has also been adapted by US forces, can effectively suppress air-to-surface precision-guided munitions with a range of about 50km due to the Earth’s curvature and cost. Using long-range cruise missiles, such as the Tomahawk system, to attack motor vehicles is uneconomical. Third, advanced air defense missiles have multiple interception capabilities and they have been regarded as a cost-effective strategic deterrent.
For example, the US’ deployment of the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense system in South Korea and Russia’s deployment of the S-400 Triumf missile system in Syria have had a real strategic effect and they are no longer mere defense systems for campaign and tactical levels.
For example, Germany’s decision to adopt the advanced Medium Extended Air Defense System for its missile defense and the European Phased Adaptive Approach are based on the considerations that building a new generation of fighters is costly and that advanced air defense systems are more effective as a defensive strategy.
In addition, Taiwan should change the traditional concept of air-force-to-air-force, navy-to-navy or army-to-army engagement. It could apply the “horse racing strategy” and use “slow horses” to compete against “fast horses,” that is, using cheaper mobile air-defense missiles to wear down the Chinese People’s Liberation Army Air Force to allow Taiwan’s navy and air force to increase their combat power.
Meanwhile, from the perspective of military equipment investment cost-effectiveness, investing NT$30 billion (US$950 million) would allow Taiwan to build a Perry-class frigate or 18 F-16 Fighting Falcon warplanes, but the same money can be used to purchase 90 sets of medium-range anti-aircraft missile vehicles and 600 missiles — based on the surface-to-air TC2 Sky Sword II missile system — with high operational flexibility. Perhaps it would be possible to create better strategic value using an even better combination and adopt an asymmetric strategy that would give greater return at lower cost and make it possible to defeat a more powerful enemy.
Considering Taiwan’s defense resources, military science and technological development, as well as the air power strategy of European nations, thinking of Taiwan as an “unsinkable carrier” is a more viable model for the nation’s defense. As a strategic force, land-based medium-range mobile air defense units will provide the most cost-effective investment in Taiwan’s defense; they can quickly be raised, and can substantially offset China’s air superiority.
The regional security structures in East Asia or the first island chain will be reshuffled within the next 10 years due to the transformation of international security, China’s new projection capabilities, and leadership changes in the US and China. Taiwan’s resources are relatively limited. Therefore, it is necessary to apply new concepts to reform the national defense forces.
This would enable Taiwan to play a key role in regional affairs, ensure its own rights and interests, and maintain its voice in international affairs.
Su Tzu-yun is chief executive officer of Center for Advanced Technology at Tamkang University.
Translated by Lin Lee-kai
Trying to force a partnership between Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) and Intel Corp would be a wildly complex ordeal. Already, the reported request from the Trump administration for TSMC to take a controlling stake in Intel’s US factories is facing valid questions about feasibility from all sides. Washington would likely not support a foreign company operating Intel’s domestic factories, Reuters reported — just look at how that is going over in the steel sector. Meanwhile, many in Taiwan are concerned about the company being forced to transfer its bleeding-edge tech capabilities and give up its strategic advantage. This is especially
US President Donald Trump’s second administration has gotten off to a fast start with a blizzard of initiatives focused on domestic commitments made during his campaign. His tariff-based approach to re-ordering global trade in a manner more favorable to the United States appears to be in its infancy, but the significant scale and scope are undeniable. That said, while China looms largest on the list of national security challenges, to date we have heard little from the administration, bar the 10 percent tariffs directed at China, on specific priorities vis-a-vis China. The Congressional hearings for President Trump’s cabinet have, so far,
US President Donald Trump last week announced plans to impose reciprocal tariffs on eight countries. As Taiwan, a key hub for semiconductor manufacturing, is among them, the policy would significantly affect the country. In response, Minister of Economic Affairs J.W. Kuo (郭智輝) dispatched two officials to the US for negotiations, and Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co’s (TSMC) board of directors convened its first-ever meeting in the US. Those developments highlight how the US’ unstable trade policies are posing a growing threat to Taiwan. Can the US truly gain an advantage in chip manufacturing by reversing trade liberalization? Is it realistic to
The US Department of State has removed the phrase “we do not support Taiwan independence” in its updated Taiwan-US relations fact sheet, which instead iterates that “we expect cross-strait differences to be resolved by peaceful means, free from coercion, in a manner acceptable to the people on both sides of the Strait.” This shows a tougher stance rejecting China’s false claims of sovereignty over Taiwan. Since switching formal diplomatic recognition from the Republic of China to the People’s Republic of China in 1979, the US government has continually indicated that it “does not support Taiwan independence.” The phrase was removed in 2022
RSS