Updated news on ROCN submarine acquisition

adeptitus

Captain
VIP Professional
This article brought up an interesting point. Usually we assume the arms purchase bill is fought over for political or economic (cost) issue. But honestly, would you fork over $12 billion without knowing what you're getting?

Also, Mr. Simmons seems to think he's speaking for the USN. =p

============

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Defense ministry outlines new proposal on submarines

STALLED PURCHASE: The ministry wants to break the budget into two parts, with the first part used to design the subs and the second part funding their construction

By Mac William Bishop
STAFF REPORTER
Tuesday, Mar 21, 2006,Page 3

The military is trying to move forward a proposal to purchase submarines from the US by endorsing a deal that could placate opposition lawmakers, who have criticized the subs as overly expensive.

In a special report released yesterday, the Ministry of National Defense threw its weight behind a proposal championed by US Representative Rob Simmons, who recently traveled to Taiwan seeking to help overcome the impasse.

During a Congressional hearing last week, the Connecticut Republican made no secret of the fact that one of his ultimate goals was to try to find work for his constituency, which includes the shipbuilding firm Electric Boat.

"In my recent visit to Taiwan, they indicated that they were balking at the sale price of US$12 billion, without knowing what they looked like, what they were designed to do and what in fact the Taiwanese were getting for that sale price," Simmons told a House Armed Services naval subcommittee on Thursday.

"And I suggested breaking the project out into pieces, most specifically, US$225 million for complete design, conceptual through final detail design, at which point the decision could be made as to whether to proceed with production," Simmons said.

The proposal outlined by the ministry yesterday would break the purchase into two stages. In the first stage, the ministry said it would appropriate US$200 million as part of a supplementary budget. This budget would be used to cover bidding and developing a design for the submarines.

The second stage would require appropriating a budget for the actual construction of the submarines.

According to figures released by the ministry, a single diesel-electric submarine produced in the US could be acquired for approximately US$657 million.

It said this figure was based on an independent price assessment for a 2,000-tonne vessel. If this figure were accurate, it would mean that eight subs would cost a total of US$5.26 billion.

The assessment was contained in a report on arms purchases and a review on current military combat readiness, which was delivered to the Legislative Yuan's National Defense Committee.

The ministry's report said that because the US has not built conventionally powered submarines for several years, it was difficult to determine the final cost of procuring submarines until a design had been decided upon.

It also noted the difficulties of trying to procure submarines from another country, given Taiwan's relative diplomatic isolation.

However, the support of the military does not guarantee that the sub deal will move forward. The opposition parties have blocked a special military budget proposal that included the submarines more than 45 times, despite it having undergone a series of price cuts and reconfigurations.

The US Navy has also been reported as opposing the submarine deal, but Rear Admiral Joseph Walsh, the US Navy's director of submarine warfare, tried to put these fears to rest when confronted by Simmons.

"The officials I talked to in Taiwan, from President Chen Shui-bian [陳水扁] on down to Defense Minister Lee Jye [李傑], who happens to be a submariner, have all said the [US] Navy has been dragging its feet on that," Simmons said. "Is that correct? Has the navy been dragging its feet on that project, and would the navy support a breakout of the design work for an FMS [foreign military sale]?"

"Sir, to answer your question, no, the navy has not been dragging its feet on the procurement of eight diesel submarines by Taiwan. We in the navy support the president's initiative to sell eight diesel submarines to Taiwan," Walsh replied, later adding, "Whether Taiwan would actually want to do that [agree to breaking up the deal] and do a two-step process obviously is up to the people of Taiwan to decide."

"I thank you for that answer. [Taiwan] would prefer that," Simmons said. "Just the way members of this subcommittee, members of our Congress, like to see what we're buying with the taxpayers' dollars, [Taiwanese lawmakers] like to see what they're buying with their taxpayers' dollars."
 

f2000

New Member
us never produce ssk in decades.it maybe facing problem for US designing the
modern ssk nwith state-of-the-art characteristic.maybe they will take some
ssn design to build these ssk.
but with the money spended,does taiwan worth it?
 
D

Deleted member 675

Guest
f2000 said:
but with the money spended,does taiwan worth it?

I'm not sure that it would be. They would take a long time to build and not really help counter China's submarine fleet much. I think they should buy the PACs and Orions now - perhaps something else could be bought with the money that would go towards the subs.
 

The_Zergling

Junior Member
FuManChu said:
I'm not sure that it would be. They would take a long time to build and not really help counter China's submarine fleet much. I think they should buy the PACs and Orions now - perhaps something else could be bought with the money that would go towards the subs.

My thoughts exactly. The pan-Blues (Taiwan opposition parties) blocked the arms budget a LOT of times, one of the crucial reasons being cost and feasability, which is why I'm interested in their version of the bill that they should be bringing up sometime soon (if they haven't already).

I blogged in this earlier, here are some of my thoughts...

Arguments against the arms budget point out (rightly so) that if Taiwan puts all of its defense eggs into arms that will not be deployed until the distant future (Confirmed to be at least 2010 or after) there is a disturbing chance that they will not be relevant in the event that they are actually needed (Taiwan's Ministry of National Defense and the DPP’s (the current ruling political party) Department of Chinese Affairs (2003), all unanimously predicted that between 2006 and 2010 the military balance between Mainland China and Taiwan will tip against Taiwan and the potential for war will reach a critical point. ) and also might prevent other more effective purchases from materializing. (Because of cost, among other factors)

Historically, arms purchaes have been solely within the decision-making power of Taiwan's president. However, an arguable point is that since Taiwan is now a democracy (a relatively recent turn of events, arms purchases wise), decisions should be initiated by Taiwan and decided in a democratic matter.

rom a purely defensive military standpoint, the submarines (which happen to be the most expensive item on the shopping list) would have to go. US apprehensions regarding capability and America's nuclear submarine-based strategy aside, the main reason would be that as of now it is hard to find a manufacturing country, and the extended delivery team (estimated minimum of at least 8 years) would mean that the submarines wouldn't be around to do the job that they're needed for. Even more discouraging is the probability that they would in fact be of little use against PRC forces.

Using the same concerns, the P-3 anti-submarine aircraft might be considered, but there probably ought to be a reduction in terms of both numbers and (more importantly) price. The current 40 billion NT price tag is far too high for the limited number of aircraft provided. Other defense weapons that could be a better deal for the money include rapid response helicopters, anti-ship mines, land based anti-ship missiles and SAMs are all legitimate useful defensive weapons and should also be taken under careful consideration.

Alternately, the money could also be spent on the strengthening of important military structures, such as airfield runways, fighter shelters, ammo and oil depots, communications, control centers, and other vital military assets. The cost of doing this kind of preparation would be relatively low, but would also serve to strengthen Taiwan's ability to survive a potentially crippling first strike. What's more this money could be spent domestically, helping the economy. (Although this is a lame excuse, as argued by myself against myself on this blog. God I do hate shooting myself in the foot.)
 
D

Deleted member 675

Guest
The_Zergling said:
The pan-Blues (Taiwan opposition parties) blocked the arms budget a LOT of times, one of the crucial reasons being cost and feasability, which is why I'm interested in their version of the bill that they should be bringing up sometime soon (if they haven't already).

Unfortunately I have heard that their legislators have voiced dissatisfaction at even the limited KMT proposal, which was just to buy the Orions. So it appears that nothing is actually going to be bought because they're still throwing a temper-tantrum (over whatever it is this time).

I think the behaviour of the KMT (and other Pan Blues) is terrible. They're playing politics with the defence of their own country. It's as if they'd prefer the PLA invading successfully just to spite the Pan-Greens. Objecting to the subs is one thing - saying Taiwan can't buy the Orions or PAC-3 batteries is quite another and very childish.
 

f2000

New Member
pac n orion are badly needed in taiwan defence.these assets are
for long range detection n china will think twice to send their ac
near taiwan. with orion taiwan can detect china's subs earlier n can destroy
it before the subs destroy any taiwan vessels.
if they dot have these assets they will be easy target for china subs n ac.

about their politician i heard there are alot of corruption in their government
n this will endanger taiwan defence itself.with current achievment by china
in developing thier armed forces taiwan must think wisely in buying or producing weapons becoz they doesnt have a lot of funding
 

Vlad Plasmius

Junior Member
pac n orion are badly needed in taiwan defence.

I disagree. The PAC 3 is not as long-range as the PAC-2s and the the PAC-3s will be used for close to medium range defense. They won't be able to reach across the straits unless put on one of the coastal islands controlled by Taiwan, but that makes them easy targets for artillery.Taiwan is only augmenting their short-range air defense. Kind of odd considering they have an "air supremacy first" strategy that would be much better implemented with long-range SAMs.

Anyway, on topic, the ROCN probably won't be helped much by this acquisition. It would merely be a token measure. The ROCN wouldn't expect to receive all the subs until sometime around 2015, as I recall. By then China will have dozens of kilos, dozens of yuan, and dozens of songs. China will probably have a new quieter sub or two in production by then. China would also have enchanced its ASW capabilities by then. It seems unlikely they'd be able to do anything once Taiwan got them.
 
Top