SinoDefence Forum

unknauthr

It looks like the ROC is finally going to move forward with some of the long-delayed arms purchases from the US, that were being held-up in their parliament for the past six years.

There appears to be a commitment to finally fund the weapons package first approved for export by the US in 2001:
http://www.chinapost.com.tw/news/arc...224/103093.htm

This package would include 12 anti-submarine warfare aircraft (P-3 Orions), 8 diesel-electric submarines, and 6 Patriot PAC-III anti-missile batteries.

More recently, the White House approved the sale of another 218 AMRAAM air-to-air missiles, and 235 Maverick air-to-ground missiles, just this week.
http://today.reuters.com/news/articl...c=66&type=qcna

The long talked about purchase of another batch of F-16s will probably not be too far behind.

I wonder if they're getting nervous now that the J-10 is being fielded within striking distance . . .


For anyone who missed it, the ROC's generals have been making their rounds ever since the J-10 was officially unveiled, stirring up support for fresh arms purchases. The following is an article from a few weeks back:
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/fron.../24/2003346081

In the words of Major General Wang Jeng-shiao, "Armed with these airplanes [the J-10], as well as Su-27s and Su-30s, China will have air supremacy over Taiwan".

bd popeye

8 SSK's? Who's going to build it? No shipyard in the US has built an SS in over 40 years. And when will they be delivered?

Thank you.

__________________
Discover the Chinese and World Military picture threads!


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


..And the Chinese Daily Life Photo thread!!


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


..And don't forget

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


"I am what I am.... 'Dat's all what I am"

planeman

Patriot PACIII is awesome system but does this point to disapointment of indigenous SAMs? Pity, diversity is the spice of life.

crobato

I think the PAC-3 also doubles as an anti missile defense, which the TK-2 cannot currently do. Much like their neighbors across the straits, the purchase of foreign systems cannot be used as a conclusion pointing the disappointment of local systems. Their local long range SAM systems and radars are comparable to a land based AEGIS system, which is no empty allusion since Raytheon also partnered in these projects.

optionsss

According to this Chinese article and most other related to the SSK purchases, Taiwan will first pay the US 360 million to design submarines, then they will discuss further about the cost and production of each subs. There are some speculations the production cost for the 8 subs would be around 8 billion to 12 billion, will atleast the bill Taiwan have to pay would be that much. The subs are super expensive partially because the typical rip-off and the fact US will have to do some outsourcing (from the Europeans). One of the names kept coming up was the Gotland class from the Swedish navy as a partner, probably providing the engines and some other necessary parts. That would make these SSK quit powerful with the AIPs, but these are just speculations. The first time when the Taiwan discussed about the military purchase the SSKs got killed, so I don't think they(ROC & US) moved to the delivery part.

Pointblank

The USN won't like it... they are going to worry that Congress might just make the USN buy SSK's over SSN's...

hongkongpride

An interesting fact here in the submarines for Taiwan

As Pointblank said:

"One of the names kept coming up was the Gotland class from the Swedish navy as a partner, probably providing the engines and some other necessary parts. That would make these SSK quite powerful with the AIPs, but these are just speculations"-

That is correct but the problem is that no US shipyard has built an SSK for over 40 years. However, an interesting fact is that while the corrupt KMT keep on blocking the arms defence bill (at last count more than 70 times)-no political party in Taiwan has kicked up a fuss about the $US360 million=US$8bn-12bn that was earmarked for the "design of submarines". In 2004, the USN leased the entire crew and submarine HMS Gotland from the Swedish Navy for anti submarine warfare exercises-and extended their loan past 2006 just last year to about 2008.

In 2001 the Bush Administration offered Taiwan the 8 subs but there has seemingly been no activity for the last 6 years. However, there have only been about 10 ASuW exercises/year in the last three years based on the USN's averge ASuW drills, each lasting about two weeks each. That means a lot of "free time" for the HMS Gotland. So I bet the USN, Lockheed Martin or Northrop Grumman via Bath Iron Works or Newport News Shipbuilding have been busy copying the Gotland down to the last screw and reverse engineering the entire sub for Taiwan with the help of the Swedish crew, explaining the $360million+US$8bn-12bn.

If the "Gotlands" or "Tailands" turn up unexpectedly in the middle of a crisis in Taiwan Strait and turn the tide in the ROCN's favor it would be a feat worthy of Sun Tzu (the master of deception) himself.

eecsmaster

an SSK turning up in the straits......where is it going to dock?

hongkongpride

Sorry man,

didn't make it clear enough.

Wandering into the realm of speculation here, IF this was to happen then probably only 2-3 subs would make a sortie into the Straits to engage in ASuW and ASW-since we're assuming Tsoying and Kaohsiung Naval bases would be offline due to heavy M-9 and M-11 SRBM strikes, as would most naval bases on Taiwan,

There would only four possible docks for the "gotland" clones due to the political situation, either a sub pen built into a mountain or something like that-which I doubt Taiwan has got, a naval base in the Phillipines under US control, a base in Vietnam-very unlikely though or the most likely, Yokohama Navy Base which is home to the Kitty Hawk CVBG (redeployed I think as of 2007) and features Patriot PAC-III and Aegis Ballistic Missile defenses which are effective against M-9/M-11 SRBMS and most ballistic missiles with the exception of the new DF-31.

FuManChu

In some respect it's old news, because the budgets were agreed last year. But political manoeuvring over elections and bills meant they were never given final approval. However because the central budget has already been held up for two months that can't go on much longer - there will probably be a vote next week.

Hehe, they're being very sly. I can't remember where, but there was an article that said privately they weren't nearly as concerned as they've been letting on in public, even if of course it's an improvement for the PLAAF.

Well the Taiwanese do have the ATBM system (supposedly) coming into service this year. Although it builds on Patriot technology, it was designed and made in Taiwan.

__________________
"Japan is as much of a threat to China, as China is to Japan."

--FuManChu

DPRKUnderground

General Dynamics has some experience with SS submarines. They did a huge upgrade project on the Egyptian Romeo-class submarines.

Contractors can easily take some old ideas. Look at where the B-2 concept came from. Plus it was the US who made the Albacore hull which made submarines much faster.

It seems that most of the submarines would be constructed in Taiwan with the first one or few in the US. That's just what China did with the Kilo-class and Pakistan with the Agusta-90Bs.

FuManChu

DPRK, welcome back (and, no, I'm not being sarcastic).

Well this is one of the big problems. The US DoD has caused a lot of problems over the Taiwanese submarine deal. First it refused to allow Taiwan access to any plans being drawn up, meaning it wouldn't be able to use them to make future designs. Second I'm not even sure it wants Taiwan to manufacture any of them.

If you have some new information to say Taiwan will be able to make all but the first few, I would like to see it. Also do you know if the DoD is still insisting it can keep hold of the designs?

__________________
"Japan is as much of a threat to China, as China is to Japan."

--FuManChu

DPRKUnderground

The Taiwanese government wanted to build most of the submarines at their own shipyards. I never knew that the US wasn't allowing that. But then again it was only a statement made by President Chen sometime ago.

FuManChu

EDIT: I re-checked, and in the past Rumsfeld/the DoD has said that:

a) Taiwan would play no role in building the submarines
b) Taiwan would not be allowed to keep the designs

I wonder whether the fact Rummy has left will change anything. If things are to move ahead, it may require some of the people around Robert Gates to be replaced as well. So far I haven't heard any news as to whether the DoD still insists on a) & b), or will give some ground.

__________________
"Japan is as much of a threat to China, as China is to Japan."

--FuManChu

Pointblank

1. How long ago was that experience? If that set of experience is not maintained and used for a long time, don't expect to be able to draw upon that sort of experience again in the future.

2. The Americans borrowed concepts supplied from the World War II developments in Germany on U-boat design. Today's submarines are much more complex than ever before, and this leads back to the first point of recent experience in designing and building. If you don't have the experience to build recent, modern SSK's, and you attempt to build them from scratch, despite all the help you can get nations that are experienced in building the type, you will encounter major problems in the design. Look at the Australian experience of the Collins class submarines; they encountered major design flaws that took years to rectify, and the class is still much maligned with bugs.

3. The Chinese did not build any Kilo class submarines. All were built in Russia. The Pakistani's built their submarines with heavy assistance from the French, who were there to guide them through the construction and help resolve the bugs. Designing a whole new submarine class from scratch is a far more difficult feat.