Taiwan Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

crobato said:

We're not starting with a high end sub. What you got is essentially a Barbel class for god's sake. Those subs were being made pre 1960. You don't need a high tech base to build the sub alone. Sonars, control and command systems, polymers for the elastic coatings, adhesives for the tiles, these are something, but nonetheless are obtainable through means that can plausibly deniable.

Cost is irrelevant, freedom has no price tag. If the PLA overruns Taiwan, you can say to the money accountant I lost because I'm too cheap to insist on making a sub on my own when no one wants to sell me.

Click to expand...

As I said, the issue is with systems integration. Is the wiring capable of handling the power requirements? Is the generator of the right type? Is the fire control computer and the combat system compatible? Is the is the sonar set compatible with the combat system and the sonar processors? This requires expertise that the Taiwanese do not have because they don't build submarines. Nations that have tried to build somewhat advanced submarines from scratch receive tons of technical assistance to help with the designing, building, and testing of the submarines. Someone has to hand them the blueprints. Someone has to explain and show the technicians how to hook things up. Someone has to explain and show the technicians how things should be laid out. The flow of data and personnel expertise will be noticed; if someone from GD Electric Boat or Northrop Grumman Newport News was in Taiwan and if it is confirmed Taiwan is building submarines, you can bet the Chinese would protest to the Americans. You cannot hide the flow of expertise and information that easily. Any decent intelligence agency will pick up the movement of such people and information pretty quickly.

PLAN Carrier Ambitions and Potential Impact forTaiwan

An interesting overview of the potential for carrier-based airpower to further shift the strategic balance in the PLA's favor:


The author suggests that China will eventually be aiming for a fleet with at least two carrier battle groups, one for deployment with the East Sea Fleet (for interdicting potential US and Japanese forces), and the other for deployment with the South China Sea Fleet (which would be capable of threatening Taiwan).

I don't think that I entirely agree with the author's assessment regarding the relative importance of carrier operations, but it's an interesting review nonetheless. As the writer concludes the article:

Pointblank said:

As I said, the issue is with systems integration. Is the wiring capable of handling the power requirements? Is the generator of the right type? Is the fire control computer and the combat system compatible? Is the is the sonar set compatible with the combat system and the sonar processors? This requires expertise that the Taiwanese do not have because they don't build submarines. Nations that have tried to build somewhat advanced submarines from scratch receive tons of technical assistance to help with the designing, building, and testing of the submarines. Someone has to hand them the blueprints. Someone has to explain and show the technicians how to hook things up. Someone has to explain and show the technicians how things should be laid out. The flow of data and personnel expertise will be noticed; if someone from GD Electric Boat or Northrop Grumman Newport News was in Taiwan and if it is confirmed Taiwan is building submarines, you can bet the Chinese would protest to the Americans. You cannot hide the flow of expertise and information that easily. Any decent intelligence agency will pick up the movement of such people and information pretty quickly.

Click to expand...

There is nothing here any harder dealing with the integration and development of systems in the IDF, HF series and the TK SAMs. The TK-2 SAMs uses a phase array system that has been compared to a land based AEGIS. Guess who provided the knowhow? Exactly the same parties who did the AEGIS.

So don't give me excuses, excuses, excuses.

Taiwan has the submarines, yes.

Taiwan has the blueprints, yes.

Taiwan has around 90% of the information is needed to build the sub, yes.

crobato said:

There is nothing here any harder dealing with the integration and development of systems in the IDF, HF series and the TK SAMs. The TK-2 SAMs uses a phase array system that has been compared to a land based AEGIS. Guess who provided the knowhow? Exactly the same parties who did the AEGIS.

So don't give me excuses, excuses, excuses.

Taiwan has the submarines, yes.

Taiwan has the blueprints, yes.

Taiwan has around 90% of the information is needed to build the sub, yes.

Click to expand...

And yet the Australians had the same things and even more, and they screwed up massively with their first attempt to build a modern submarine to the point where they went and begged the United States to take their boats and fix them. Building submarines is a complicated affair even for countries with long experience in this field so it won't happen overnight. Just because someone handed you the blueprints and all the hardware doesn't mean you can build a sub right on your first attempt.

Australia had the same things? No it didn't. Australia didn't build an indigenous modern jet fighter, and it didn't build an indigenous modern long range air defense system with phase array and 150-200km missiles. Nor does Australia build indigenous active radar homing missiles using seekers from a major US company that was also bidding for the AMRAAM project. Name how Taiwan managed to build ARH missiles so well ahead of countries like Japan. Australia isn't building supersonic antiship missiles too---missiles that look surprisingly so similar to a long dead US project.

Just because you have not built a submarine for the first time is furthermore the reason to build one the first time.

crobato said:

Australia had the same things? No it didn't. Australia didn't build an indigenous modern jet fighter, and it didn't build an indigenous modern long range air defense system with phase array and 150-200km missiles. Nor does Australia build indigenous active radar homing missiles using seekers from a major US company that was also bidding for the AMRAAM project. Name how Taiwan managed to build ARH missiles so well ahead of countries like Japan. Australia isn't building supersonic antiship missiles too---missiles that look surprisingly so similar to a long dead US project.

Just because you have not built a submarine for the first time is furthermore the reason to build one the first time.

Click to expand...

It took the Aussies NINE YEARS to get their Collins class submarines operational. They had the blueprints, they had technical advisers from Sweden, they had everything. Yet when launched, their sub was so full of bugs, it took 8 years to debug them, because they started from scratch and decided to build their own. Japan is a submarine building nation; it has a long history of building submarines.

Submarine building is DIFFERENT from regular shipbuilding. You need to have local experience already there or are willing to pay and wait a long time to build up experience. By the time the Taiwanese have built up that experience, Taiwan could have been invaded already, even if they started today.

Submarines are a MUCH more complicated weapon of war than a missile or a fighter jet. Missiles are on the easier side of design and development. Fighter jets a bit more complicated, but not particularly challenging. Submarines are among the most difficult weapons to develop and build, because of the exacting design demands that are required. The welding done must be done correctly and to a particular standard. The metallurgy for the pipes and hull is highly demanding. The layout of the submarine must be done correctly. Sound isolation must also be done correctly. These are difficult, time consuming details that take time to develop locally.

Pointblank said:

It took the Aussies NINE YEARS to get their Collins class submarines operational. They had the blueprints, they had technical advisers from Sweden, they had everything. Yet when launched, their sub was so full of bugs, it took 8 years to debug them, because they started from scratch and decided to build their own. Japan is a submarine building nation; it has a long history of building submarines.

Submarine building is DIFFERENT from regular shipbuilding. You need to have local experience already there or are willing to pay and wait a long time to build up experience. By the time the Taiwanese have built up that experience, Taiwan could have been invaded already, even if they started today.

Submarines are a MUCH more complicated weapon of war than a missile or a fighter jet. Missiles are on the easier side of design and development. Fighter jets a bit more complicated, but not particularly challenging. Submarines are among the most difficult weapons to develop and build, because of the exacting design demands that are required.

Click to expand...

They had to start anyway. Like i said, there are no excuses on this. Think of it, if the PRC/ROC situation is reversed, and it would be the PLAN thinkers defending Taiwan, what would they do?

Heck, they would already be building a fleet of SSKs already, the development pains initiated years ago.

China had similar problems in that department. But difficulties are not an excuse to say, no, we can't do it.

I doubt that a submarine is that much more complicated weapon than a modern fighter jet in terms of information technology and integration.

Look at the Iranians. At least they're trying on a minisub. The Serbs built a minisub themselves. Look at the Indians, they're building their own nuclear sub project, the ATV.

Put it another way. Why do you want to wait to die when you are between a rock and a hard place? Rock --- US never willing to build another diesel sub again. Hard place --- no one willing to sell you a new sub. So what are you going to do, wait for Santa Claus to hand you one or seriously do something about it on your own.

The Guppys are well obsolete and as time goes, the Zvaardis class subs, only two of them too, are getting older and older and older. Who is going to replace them? Nothing? ROCN's surface ASW, quite frankly, isn't very good and would have much greater things like their own survival.

@_@ I'm getting a feeling of deja vu from either an earlier discussion, or another forum.

Yes, the Australians had a lot of problems with their subs and ships. For example, the OH Perry upgrade program had numerous technical issues, and they had to spend a lot of time and effort (plus $) to fix it.

But I see it as an advantage to the ROCN, because someone else already spent the time and effort to figure it out and fix it. All they have to do is look at what the Australians did, or at least what not to do.

For the ROCN, rather than keep buying used ships, I'd have preferred if they built additional, modified OH Perry class ships with Australian navy style modifications, i.e. 8-cel Mk.41 VLS for quad-pack ESSM.

I understand that there is some concerns about European partners in programs like ESSM and RIM-116, but these are technically defensive weapons and should be far easier to obtain and generate less political controversy than submarine technology.

As it stands today, I think most of us can agree that other than the US, nobody will export subs to Taiwan. The US doesn't currently produce conventional subs, and for them to start building them, there will be many technical issues because they haven't built a conventional sub in decades. And we're not even sure if the US would build them? Thus, the most "certain" way for ROCN to get their hands on conventional subs, is to build them domestically by whatever the means. This will be costly and there will be many technical challenges, but it does almost guarantee that you're going to have them.

crobato said:

They had to start anyway. Like i said, there are no excuses on this. Think of it, if the PRC/ROC situation is reversed, and it would be the PLAN thinkers defending Taiwan, what would they do?

Heck, they would already be building a fleet of SSKs already, the development pains initiated years ago.

China had similar problems in that department. But difficulties are not an excuse to say, no, we can't do it.

I doubt that a submarine is that much more complicated weapon than a modern fighter jet in terms of information technology and integration.

Look at the Iranians. At least they're trying on a minisub. The Serbs built a minisub themselves. Look at the Indians, they're building their own nuclear sub project, the ATV.

Click to expand...

A modern submarine is overall a more complicated weapon than a fighter jet. You just can't go, oh, that looks like a good idea, let's do it.

From what we can see, yes the Iranians have built a mini-sub. But how advanced is it? Not much. The same can be said about the Serbs. The Indians are trying to build their own nuclear sub, yes, but I expect them to run into multiple technical difficulties throughout development and construction. It will be a very long and painful process for the Indians to get their subs right. They are new at the modern submarine building game. We see that some of the leading middle powers on their attempts to build an advanced submarine struggle significantly to the point where other nations have to bail them out by starting over. If your mucking around with new technology, expect to struggle with it. Taiwan might be mucking with submarine construction technology. All I have to say is: Good luck and let's hope no one dies from mistakes.

Nations that build ships, and airplanes automatically do not mean that they are capable of building advanced submarines immediately! You see Canada, a country that can build airplanes and ships, struggle with the more easier task of refitting submarines themselves. Yet Canada has the technical experience to build advanced warships and airplanes. However Canada has no recent experience building and/or modernizing submarines. The experience that was there was borrowed; to conduct the Submarine Operational Update Program on the old Oberon's, they went overseas to other sub-building nations to conduct the refits.

There is no guarantee that locally built subs will work right from launch if your new to the submarine building game. You can be stuck for years with subs that you just built but are tied up at dock because of technical problems. These problems can range anywhere from welding issues, metallurgy, to electrical systems. It might take years to sort out these issues; we have seen this with the Australian Collins class submarines, and currently, the Canadian Victoria class submarines. The learning curve for building or domestically maintaining submarines is extremely steep. Even the experienced sub makers do screw up at times.