U.S. Decides Against Selling F-16’s to Taiwan

urqh · Oct 4, 2011

USMCPrice said:

More intell.....From Navy-Times

Analysts say UAV progress won’t kill aviation

By Joshua Stewart - Staff writer
Posted : Monday Sep 12, 2011 8:19:04 EDT

When an F/A-18D Hornet made a “hands-free” landing on the carrier Dwight D. Eisenhower in July, it was a big step for unmanned flight, but not the beginning of the end of naval aviation, analysts say.The Hornet was modified to “emulate” Northrop Grumman’s X-47B unmanned air combat system, allowing it to mimic its autonomous flight capabilities.
The aircraft and shipwere outfitted with special software and equipment that allowed the carrier to giveprecise directions, allowing for the precision maneuvers required for a carrier landing.
After the aircraft got into position July 2, an operator on the carrier selected a pre-programmed approach on a computer monitor. The plane automatically touched down on Ike’s flight deck, and the tailhook snagged the arresting cable. The landing and several other approaches were repeated throughout the day.
Besides the new technology, it looked exactly the same as any other flight.
While unmanned planes will allow for different types of missions, there are still feats only pilots can master that will keep people busy in cockpits, analysts said. But there will be significant changes.
Once unmanned aircraft have mastered midair refueling — a task the Navy hasn’t attempted yet — a new set of capabilities will sit in the hangar.
“Pound for pound, you’re going to get a longer range and more payload on an [unmanned aerial vehicle] compared to a command aircraft, and that’s going to be important in the years ahead,” said Nate Hughes, director of military analysis for Stratfor, a global intelligence company. “These days, the human in the cockpit is the limiting factor.”
There are certain jobs where carrier-based unmanned aircraft will have an advantage. For example, Hughes said, they’ll be useful if the fleet sees an increase in operations involving China in the Pacific, where missions tend to take longer than elsewhere.
The bulk of unmanned and autonomous flights will be for surveillance, reconnaissance and tanking purposes — missions that can last for several monotonous hours, said Norman Friedman, author of “Unmanned Combat Air Systems: A New Kind of Carrier Aviation.”
“Eventually they run out of oil pressure or something breaks, but it will outlast a pilot,” he said.
There are financial implications, too.
“It’s a cruise missile you can retrieve. If you think of it that way, you only fly it when you need it. You cut down on your gas, your numbers, your manning and your spares,” he said.
[h=3]Savings vs. capabilities[/h]Autonomous flight means that costs associated with training flights, including fuel, maintenance, logistics and payroll, will be reduced. By Friedman’s estimates, it could create as much as 66 percent in aviation-related savings, making carriers a more fiscally attractive ship.
However, the aircraft itself likely will cost the same as a manned fighter, he said.
“If I spend most of my dough on the airframes and not on the maintenance and flying all the time and stuff, I save a lot of money,” he said.
Additionally, there are per-unit savings created by the lack of ejection seats, life support and other systems aviators need to do their job, Hughes said.
But analysts said that no matter the advances in autonomous and unmanned flight, the Navy has no plans to send aviators packing.
“That’s not even a goal. The Navy’s goal is to seamlessly integrate unmanned systems into the fleet,” said Capt. Jaime Engdahl, X-47B program manager, in a July teleconference.
There will always be a need for well-trained pilots, analysts said.
“There are times when you really want a person there, so when something goes sour, you have judgment. You want probably a few manned fighters,” Friedman said.
And unmanned flight brings a new set of vulnerabilities that a pilot doesn’t have to worry about, said Eric Wertheim, editor of Combat Fleets of the World.
“This highlights the importance of cyberwarfare — both offensive and defensive — whenever we think or talk about the employment of unmanned vehicles, whether in the air, on sea, land or under the oceans. You can bet our potential adversaries are looking into this, so we need to be able to meet this challenge,” he said.
The Navy has contended with this problem with the MQ-8B Fire Scout. In one test at Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Md., the data link between the unmanned helicopter and ground controllers went down, essentially leaving the UAV without an operator as it soared into restricted airspace over Washington, D.C., before a connection and control were re-established.
A Pentagon report released in June said that the data link problems with the Fire Scout were so common that they made it impractical to use the UAV for some types of missions, a claim the Navy and developer dispute based on more recent flights.
[h=3]Finding the right mix[/h]Autonomous aircraft are built around manned systems, with no special accommodations for equipment, protocols or handling while onboard the carrier.
The big unknown, analysts said, is how much of a presence such aircraft shouldhave in the fleet.
“The question is, what is the balance moving forward in the carrier air wing? And that’s going to be as much as a budget and institutional decision as it will be about what the UAVs bring to the table,” Hughes said.
That balance will depend, in part, on the politics of aviation and fiscal demands.
“Somebody once said that UAVs don’t sit on promotion boards. Their point is that there’s certainly broad agreement that there’s value in unmanned systems, that’s undeniable at this point,” Hughes said. “But you have fiscal austerity, and you have pilots who are long-standing aviators.”
Click to expand...

You call that intel USMC....sorry tongue in cheek still......I'll counter your Navy Times Intel...Bit biased that matey...With MOD documents relating to UK air. Just for Biak...I have many by the way...Ministry of Defence UK rather than periodicals...from the horses mouth as it were...I'll put em up if any one is really interested...Big reads though...Needs a little annalytical thought. As an aside, I attended a meeting at MOD Paradigm hq today on the subject matter involved. They deny nothing, they encourage debate.

Biak · Oct 4, 2011

I just read this and maybe no F-16's but 12 Billion over two years isn't chump-change:

[h=3]Official Cites Importance of Stability in Taiwan Strait[/h] By Army Sgt. 1st Class Tyrone C. Marshall Jr.
American Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON, Oct. 4, 2011 – The United States remains committed to Taiwan and to peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait, a Pentagon official told the House Foreign Affairs Committee today.
“Stability in the Taiwan Strait is critically important to the Obama administration, and has a strong bearing on our enduring interests in and commitments to peace and stability in the Asian-Pacific region,” said Peter Lavoy, principal assistant secretary of defense for Asian and Pacific security affairs.
“The Obama administration is firmly committed to our ‘One China’ policy, which is based on three joint U.S.-China communiqués and the Taiwan Relations Act,” he added.
The Taiwan Relations Act of 1979 has governed policy in the absence of a diplomatic relationship or a defense treaty with Taiwan. Additionally, key statements that guide policy are the three U.S.-China Joint Communiqués of 1972, 1979 and 1982 and the “Six Assurances” of 1982.
“This policy has endured for over three decades and across eight administrations,” Lavoy noted. “Today, the United States has a deep security relationship with Taiwan, as indicated by the administration’s strong record on arms sales.”
Congress has approved more than $12 billon in defense aid for Taiwan in the last two years, Lavoy said. “We will continue to make available to Taiwan defense articles and services to enable it to maintain a sufficient self-defense capability,” he told the panel.
Lavoy said the administration’s relationship with Taiwan “encompasses much more than arms transfers.”
“The Department of Defense has a responsibility to monitor China’s military developments and to deter aggression and conflict,” he said, noting that China’s armed forces have made significant advances in technology and strategic ability.
“China’s economic rise has enabled it to transform its armed forces from a mass army designed for wars of attrition on its own territory to one capable of fighting short-duration, high-intensity conflict along its periphery against high-tech adversaries,” he said.
China’s ability to sustain military power at a distance remains limited, he said, but its armed forces are developing and fielding advanced military technologies to support attacks and anti-access and aerial denial strategies. China also has positioned advanced equipment opposite Taiwan’s military regions, Lavoy said.
“Beijing fields advanced surface combatants and submarines to increase its anti-surface and anti-warfare capabilities,” he said. “Similarly, advanced fighter aircraft and integrated air defense systems deployed to bases and garrisons in the coastal regions increase Beijing’s ability to gain and maintain air superiority over the Taiwan Strait.”
These systems would enable China to conduct offensive counter-air and land attacks against Taiwanese forces and critical infrastructure, he explained.
“In response to this growing threat, Taiwan authorities have undertaken a series of reforms designed to improve the island’s capacity to deter and defend against an attack by the mainland,” he said.
Pointing to investments in infrastructure, war reserve, crisis response and other reforms, Lavoy said these improvements would help to secure the island.
“[These reforms] have reinforced the natural advantages of island defense,” he said. “Taiwan’s defense reforms today are important and necessary, and further efforts are needed.”
Lavoy referred to the Taiwan Relations Act as “a good law that makes for good policy,” and said it has created the conditions for the two sides to engage in peaceful dialogue.

Defense.gov News Article: Official Cites Importance of Stability in Taiwan Strait

kerrd5 · Oct 4, 2011

"Congress has approved more than $12 billon in defense aid for Taiwan in the last two years, Lavoy said."

This is misleading. Taiwan is a Cash Customer and does not receive FMF.

http://www.dsca.mil/programs/biz-ops/factsbook/Historical_Facts_Book_2009.pdf

The retro-fit of the Taiwanese F-16s is valued at $5.3 Billion.

http://www.dsca.mil/PressReleases/36-b/2011/TECRO_11-39.pdf

Dave

STURMTRUPPEN · Oct 4, 2011

i wonder why the taiwanese need new jet fighters

A-58 · Oct 4, 2011

The ones they have are getting old and worn out.

Colonel FOG · Oct 4, 2011

@Dave - Very informative post. I guess everyone knows now what Taiwan is being allowed to purchase. Thanks.
Other than the list of electronic goodies, of some interest is the design study for engine upgrade to the PW-229, which (in an A/B airframe) would give them the highest thrust to weight ratio of any F-16 variant. Can you say, "Hot Rod Lincoln"?

CAC · Oct 5, 2011

would give them the highest thrust to weight ratio of any F-16 variant. Can you say, "Hot Rod Lincoln"?
I thought i had that...! : )

Colonel FOG · Oct 6, 2011

"The 150 F-16A/B Block 15OCU's for Taiwan are built to MLU standards and are designated Block 20. The Block 20 designation was reserved in the 1980's. It was later assigned to the Taiwanese aircraft and to the MLU program initiated to bring the European F-16s to an enhanced level, comparable with the block 50 [C/D]F-16s of the USAF."

Toss in a the lighter and more powerful PW-229, and what do you get? The Lockheed "Super Falcon" ; Block 88? LOL
[side note: the Block 20, although ending in a zero, nonetheless indicates the P&W powerplant.]

CAC · Oct 6, 2011

Colonel FOG said:

"The 150 F-16A/B Block 15OCU's for Taiwan are built to MLU standards and are designated Block 20. The Block 20 designation was reserved in the 1980's. It was later assigned to the Taiwanese aircraft and to the MLU program initiated to bring the European F-16s to an enhanced level, comparable with the block 50 [C/D]F-16s of the USAF."

Toss in a the lighter and more powerful PW-229, and what do you get? The Lockheed "Super Falcon" ; Block 88? LOL
[side note: the Block 20, although ending in a zero, nonetheless indicates the P&W powerplant.]
Click to expand...

Did you guys get any or make any Tigers? Or Tiger Sharks even??

Poppy · Oct 6, 2011

The F5 F20 were hot.
The Northrop F-5 Freedom Fighter/F-20 Tigershark - YouTube

Colonel FOG · Oct 6, 2011

The ROC did not build any F-20s. However, they built a lot of F-5E/Fs, the later ones being called Tiger II.
"By 1973, Taiwan's AIDC started local production of a first batch of 100 F-5Es in Taiwan, the first of six Peace Tiger production batches. By end of 1986 when the production line closed after completing Peace Tiger 6, the AIDC had produced 242 F-5Es and 66 F-5Fs. Adding the 28 original US-made F-5E/Fs, this made Taiwan the largest F-5E/F operator at one time, with 336 F-5E/Fs in inventory. A bit of F-20 influence can be seen in the last batch of F-5E/Fs by AIDC in Taiwan that featured the F-20's shark nose."

CAC · Oct 6, 2011

Colonel FOG said:

The ROC did not build any F-20s. However, they built a lot of F-5E/Fs, the later ones being called Tiger II.
"By 1973, Taiwan's AIDC started local production of a first batch of 100 F-5Es in Taiwan, the first of six Peace Tiger production batches. By end of 1986 when the production line closed after completing Peace Tiger 6, the AIDC had produced 242 F-5Es and 66 F-5Fs. Adding the 28 original US-made F-5E/Fs, this made Taiwan the largest F-5E/F operator at one time, with 336 F-5E/Fs in inventory. A bit of F-20 influence can be seen in the last batch of F-5E/Fs by AIDC in Taiwan that featured the F-20's shark nose."
Click to expand...

They are a sweet aircraft...simple and relatively cheap...made almost entirely for export, US didnt have a need for a "light-fighter"...still doesnt. Would have been looked at for carrier operations i suppose. Loved watching them escort the Space Shuttle inward bound...but they were T-38 Talons...(Here we go again! I think and engine change and some missile rails are the only difference i can see...an extension on the wings? These are MORE than similar aircraft surely??

Colonel FOG · Oct 6, 2011

Carrier might be correct. I think it's rather funny that Taiwan has no aircraft carrier, yet all the F-5's fly with a tail hook on them!
It's actually intend for emergency landings, but am not aware of any ever being deployed.
The most common use is to secure the aircraft during engine testing. Note: F-16s have tailhooks as well.
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/planes/q0295.shtml

"The F-5B and F (which also derive from the N-156) can be distinguished from the T-38 by the wings; the wing of the T-38 meets the fuselage straight and ends square, while the F-5 possesses leading edge extensions near the wing roots and wingtip launch rails for air to air missiles. Under the paint, the T-38 wing is constructed of honeycomb material while the wing of the F-5 family is constructed of conventional skin over underlying support structure."[SUP][/SUP]

CAC · Oct 6, 2011

Colonel FOG said:

Carrier might be correct. I think it's rather funny that Taiwan has no aircraft carrier, yet all the F-5's fly with a tail hook on them!
It's actually intend for emergency landings, but am not aware of any ever being deployed.
The most common use is to secure the aircraft during engine testing. Note: F-16s have tailhooks as well.
Aerospaceweb.org | Ask Us - Air Force Fighters & Tailhooks

"The F-5B and F (which also derive from the N-156) can be distinguished from the T-38 by the wings; the wing of the T-38 meets the fuselage straight and ends square, while the F-5 possesses leading edge extensions near the wing roots and wingtip launch rails for air to air missiles. Under the paint, the T-38 wing is constructed of honeycomb material while the wing of the F-5 family is constructed of conventional skin over underlying support structure."
Click to expand...

Sooo (not to harp on this) we are in "some" agreement that these are at least closely related? The F5F is a two seater (i think) is that also what they use for training?

Colonel FOG · Oct 6, 2011

Yes, the T-38 and F-5 are close cousins.

Training? Sometimes. The F-5F is sometimes also used as the observer during training here in Taiwan. That's how we lost two a/c and three pilots last month when they hit a mountain at night; this included the one (#5401) shown in the pic; the other was a single-seat RF-5E. Hualien is not a "flight school", so I don't see the other trainer a/c, T-34 and AT-3, here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_China_Air_Force

Colonel FOG · Oct 6, 2011

Yes. Agreed. The T-38 and F-5 are close cousins.

Training? In some ways, yes. The F-5F is sometimes also used as the observer during training here in Taiwan. That's how we lost two a/c and three pilots last month when they hit a mountain at night; this included the one (#5401) shown in the pic. At other times they are employed as "combatant a/c" against F-16s, in the way T-38s are used at Top Gun in the USA. The usual training a/c are the T-34 and AT-3, but I don't see them at the Hualien airbase, except during airshows.

CAC · Oct 6, 2011

Colonel FOG said:

Yes. Agreed. The T-38 and F-5 are close cousins.

Training? In some ways, yes. The F-5F is sometimes also used as the observer during training here in Taiwan. That's how we lost two a/c and three pilots last month when they hit a mountain at night; this included the one (#5401) shown in the pic. At other times they are employed as "combatant a/c" against F-16s, in the way T-38s are used at Top Gun in the USA. The usual training a/c are the T-34 and AT-3, but I don't see them at the Hualien airbase, except during airshows.
Click to expand...

Thanks Heir Colonel...was getting a bit skitzy on that! : )
Yes top gun...im sure a whole generation (and then some) are out there who think a T-38 or F5 are Russian!

Colonel FOG · Oct 7, 2011

Are you saying those Top Gun planes are NOT Mig-38s??!! Gee... How will I explain this to my classmates at grade school?

Poppy · Apr 28, 2012

Oi!...Took a while to find this old thread....
U.S. raises hope of sale of new fighters to Taiwan | CTV News
Our CTV is weak. This is better:
Import or Die: Taiwan’s (Un?)Stalled Force Modernization

FOG was on the button.

Log in or Sign up

U.S. Decides Against Selling F-16’s to Taiwan

urqh Tea drinking surrender monkey

Biak Boy from Illinois Staff Member

kerrd5 Ace

STURMTRUPPEN Member

A-58 Cool Dude

Colonel FOG Member

CAC Ace of Spades

Colonel FOG Member

CAC Ace of Spades

Poppy grasshopper

Colonel FOG Member

Attached Files:

100_4289.jpg

CAC Ace of Spades

Colonel FOG Member

CAC Ace of Spades

Colonel FOG Member

Colonel FOG Member

CAC Ace of Spades

Colonel FOG Member

Poppy grasshopper

Share This Page

About US

Useful Links