Eh, so now you're saying they won't?! First you said:
the 8 subs probably won't matter much
Then it was:
I never said that 8 submarines won't make a difference
Now we're back to:
8 subs won't
Please, make your mind up and stick with one position.
And what is the context of the remaining statements that I have said, huh? You duly edited them out.
8 subs won't make that much of a difference but 16, or 24, maybe down the decade or two, that's all going to make a difference, plus the fact you have control of its development. The fact that you can build domestically relieves you from the political circus of dealing with US politics.
And how many submarines does Taiwan need to operate and of what standard do they need to be? I'll say it again, if Taiwan can accord to buy more than eight submarines made locally it could place a larger order with the US.
And how many times do I have to stuff it into your head that the USN does not appear to be willing to let any US shipyard make a diesel sub in the US again. They have known this issue since 2001 and before that, and they're not going to make an exception.
Yes there are advantages to a domestic industry, but that's not related to whether having 8 SSKs is enough or not. Furthermore if Taiwan couldn't keep whatever submarine business it developed going it would be a horrible waste - the Dutch could tell you all about that.
The advantages of having a domestic industry is simple. You don't have to rely on foreign pressure and whims.
The loss of domestic defense industry, read IDF, has not made Taiwan any easier to defend, and in fact, the PLA has not just closed the technology gap but is now even forging ahead at a faster rate of implement.
How does that show America doesn't trust Taiwan with technology?
Ask Mr. Wen Ho Lee.
Well the KMT wanted all this stuff when they were in power, and they had more than enough votes to pass the arms purchases with the government's allies. The fact they did a complete U-turn on the Patriot and SSK money without giving any reason shows they were being cynical with their nation's defence - it was down to the upcoming elections.
Go ahead and fault the KMT for something every party in any democracy would do, which is to shut down their opposition's proposal and submit their own.
Live with it buddy, that's part of being a democracy.
The KMT did not propose its own version of the bill - it just modified the central government budget.
That's still part of being a democracy.
crobato, what are you talking about? I never said the Kidds had a VLS. I said that the modified Perry design offered to Taiwan had a Mark 41 and a SPY radar.
That's the small frigate version, the baby version.
This is rich you saying I don't know anything. I said earlier on:
I meant any highly classified stuff that is exclusively used in nuclear-powered submarines that might work its way into the design. Given there are "quiet" SSKs that have their own technology for avoiding detection there's no need to use tech from nuclear subs.
Then you complained that for the most part, a lot of quieting stuff between conventionals and nuclear subs are in fact common.
It does not change the bottom line the US would not share their PARTICULAR implementation of said technologies. Just because you already have anecholic tile technology and its adhesives from someone else, does not give the US the reason to share their OWN implementation to you.
Now you're back to saying what I was getting at, that the SSKs wouldn't need to use SSN technology to be quiet.
Am I talking to the same person, or is there more than one personality inside crobato? It really is like having a conversation with more than one person - or at least someone who doesn't remember what he said a few days ago.
The problem is that you don't seem to understand or differentiate ownership of technology. Read this, just because you have acquired someone's version of X technology, does not mean the US is willing to share its version of X technology to you.
So why can't the US get such help? And why would the USN be worried about co-operation like that in regards to the security of its own technology? (Leave aside the issue of competitve SSKs being designed/built in the US.)
I already told you again and again, the USN does not want to build diesel subs on its home soil again and that is a deeply religious issue. Even if the ship builder assumes that they will try to obtain the technologies from out of the country, that's still going to cast a review. Furthermore, by outsourcing, you will inflate the costs even further.
For crying out loud, there is not even a formal proposal made by Electric Boat or whoever. Meaning you have not gone into any serious paper yet. You don't even have firm specs even to draw a realistic budget model, and this is already 2008.
While you keep yapping and putting lip service on rather trivial actions such as money for "research", a new sub comes out from the mainland every two or three months.
The way I see it its kind of like the Japan F-22 issue, you want this to be a symbolic test of US commitment to its dear allies. Don't expect too much.
