Article

2003-08-14 East Asia

Arms makers drool over Taiwanâs multi-billion-dollar arms spending spree

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Domingo 2003-08-14 9:32:46 AM|| || Front Page|| [4 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 well at least this time we'd get more for the snatched tech info than just contributions to the Clinton/Gore re-election campaign

Posted by Frank G 2003-8-14 10:03:56 AM|| 2003-8-14 10:03:56 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 I'm no naval tech, but I do not think that any conventional sub could be anything but a quick snack for the silent high tech nuke powered subs we deploy.

Posted by Craig 2003-8-14 10:06:54 AM|| 2003-8-14 10:06:54 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 Not so. They don't have the speed, but they can be very quiet, and a modern one could ambush a maneuvering nuclear sub.

The significance of the Taiwanese sub purchase is that with a significant number of submarines they could retaliate against a Chinese blockade, one of the more likely war scenarios, with their own blockade of China, using a technology that the Chinese could not effectively counter.

Posted by buwaya 2003-8-14 11:38:59 AM|| 2003-8-14 11:38:59 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 IIUC when run on battery power, the current diesel subs are very quiet. Main drawback is in having to snorkel to run the diesel and charge the batteries. We need to make sure that Taiwan is armed as well as possible. Nothing will keep the peace across the straits as well as a Taiwan capable of defending itself

Posted by Frank G 2003-8-14 12:04:14 PM|| 2003-8-14 12:04:14 PM|| Front Page Top

#5 FYI:
www.emeraldesigns.com/matchup/military.shtml

Posted by Domingo 2003-8-14 12:56:50 PM|| 2003-8-14 12:56:50 PM|| Front Page Top

#6 so does this mean US shipyards that specialize in Nuke subs will lower themselves to build Diesel boats for the ROC?

Posted by liberalhawk 2003-8-14 1:45:45 PM|| 2003-8-14 1:45:45 PM|| Front Page Top

#7 Kinda, It seems as if a Euro design will be built in American shipyards for the ROC.

Posted by Domingo 2003-8-14 2:15:14 PM|| 2003-8-14 2:15:14 PM|| Front Page Top

#8 The Taiwanese subs wouldn't be used to blockade Chinese ports -- too many ports, not enough subs. But they would be dandy for breaking a naval blockade of Taiwan. The conventional subs would be very quiet, able to operate in littorial zones, and are much cheaper to buy/operate. Put a well-trained crew in a first-class modern conventional sub against a (let's be charitable) less well-trained crew in a Soviet-design destroyer

I've read elsewhere that the US at least has some requirements and safeguards on tech transfers in these situations. And it wouldn't be in the Taiwanese interest to let the technology slither over to the mainland.

Posted by Steve White 2003-8-14 3:13:35 PM|| 2003-8-14 3:13:35 PM|| Front Page Top

#9 I think it's a German design. They wouldn't sell them boats built in German yards because that would upset the Red Chinese. If anyone knows about U-boats, it's the Germans.

Posted by Steve 2003-8-14 3:15:44 PM|| 2003-8-14 3:15:44 PM|| Front Page Top

#10 so does this mean US shipyards that specialize in Nuke subs will lower themselves to build Diesel boats for the ROC?

It isn't a case of elitism. It's more like acknowledging who's been paying for the goods over the past half-century

There has been long standing opposition to conventionally-powered boats from the both the USN nuke community and Navy brass in general. The former's reason is obvious. The latter's opposition is varied and has some merit.

Until recently, conventional boats weren't physically capable of meeting the tactical and strategic requirements for a USN fast-attack boat: following and engaging Soviet subs, and engaging in covert operations.

Second (and quite probable): had a conventional boat available by US shipyards at any time over the past 40 years, Congress would have mandated their use, partly on 'pork', more on lower costs, with all the consequences that entails.

Posted by Pappy 2003-8-14 3:57:11 PM|| 2003-8-14 3:57:11 PM|| Front Page Top

#11 You won't need that many subs to cripple Chinese ports. The threat of high risk of losing shipping will make insurance rates skyrocket and deter trade very greatly. It would be extremely expensive for the Chinese to protect shipping. It is the old raiding strategy.

Posted by buwaya 2003-8-14 8:58:29 PM|| 2003-8-14 8:58:29 PM|| Front Page Top

07:08 Kathy K
04:43 R. McLeod
00:48 fullwood
00:05 mojo
00:01 mojo
23:52 mojo
23:48 mojo
23:38 AWW
23:18 Bomb-a-rama
23:09 Alaska Paul
23:05 Alaska Paul
22:58 Barbara Skolaut
22:27 .com
22:20 tu3031
22:15 Steve White
22:12 tu3031
22:08 Anonymous
22:07 Steve White
21:47 Dar
21:41 tu3031
21:41 Dar
21:37 tu3031
21:35 Dar
21:29 Dar