UPI: "Taiwan plans to purchase.... two nuclear attack submarines."

Originally Posted by TinWing

http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/view.ph...6-010421-7821r

This report is not unprecedented.

There are no international anti-proliferation conventions that would prohibit the transfer of a SSN.

A couple of LA class boats would certainly up the ante in the Straits, particularly if they were augmented/supplemented by 6 or 8 modern diesel electric boats.

But I seriously doubt the US would transfer nuclear attack subs. Even with the LA class boats, there is simply too much technology that could pose significant risk to other US naval/submarine operations.

Nevertheless, it is interesting...we shall see if this is confirmed and official when the offer is either extended by the US, or if the ROC officially requests it and then what the results will be.

Up until very recently, there has been no export of nuclear powered attack submarines by any nation. But with Russia's leasing of 2 Akula SSN's to India, this has changed.

I still think it's unlikely that the US would export SSN's, But if the ROCN acquire 2 SSN's from the US, I suspect the Russians would make an offer of Akula-II to the PLAN? Though I'm not sure if the PLAN would want it.

Isn't the SSN an offensive weapon?

I highly doubt the US would approve the sales/transfer of LA class SSNs to Taiwan. The Taiwan Relations Act specifically stipulates that the US is to provide Taiwan with "arms of a defensive character." Giving the Taiwanese SSNs capable of launching Tomahawks would probably raise concerns both abroad and at home.

Besides, proposing the acquisition of a weapon and taking the actual steps in obtaining them are completely different things. Wasn't the proposition to acquire 8 SSKs raised way back in 2001? Five years have passed, and still, the Taiwanese haven't come up with a single dime for them. It seems that the Taiwanese aren't serious about defending their own territory, and they expect the U.S. to dish out the hardware (and lives) when the Chinese invade.

adeptius

Though I'm not sure if the PLAN would want it.

I think it depends on how advanced/reliable their own engeneering is here. If Taiwan got SSNs supplied from outside, there would be no reason why China should not aquire foreign (perhaps more advanced) SSN technology, regarding this non proliferation of SSNs you mentioned.

But would it make any difference if the ROCN got diesel-electric or nukler-powered subs ? I mean from a military standpoint it wouldn't, since these subs will only be used around the island. Politicly, ... just don't know, would China be even more pissed off if someone suplied SSNs to ROCN ??

edit: ok subs launching SLCM add a new dimension to that, I don't believe the US will provoke China that much ...

Originally Posted by guitarjeff

Isn't the SSN an offensive weapon?

I highly doubt the US would approve the sales/transfer of LA class SSNs to Taiwan. The Taiwan Relations Act specifically stipulates that the US is to provide Taiwan with "arms of a defensive character." Giving the Taiwanese SSNs capable of launching Tomahawks would probably raise concerns both abroad and at home.

I also doubt seriously, if the US offered LA class boats, that they would come with the SLCMs. Perhaps the Harpoon launch capability out of the tubes...but no VLS. Perhaps the ROCN would get a couple of the older LA class boats without the VLS...in which case they would not be ADCAP, but they would still be very good by the regions standards.

I see it basically as---

The US won't make diesel submarines for Taiwan.

The countries that make diesel submarines won't sell for Taiwan.

Ergo, Taiwan has no choice but to purchase old nuclear subs from the US.

Originally Posted by crobato

I see it basically as---

The US won't make diesel submarines for Taiwan.

The countries that make diesel submarines won't sell for Taiwan.

Ergo, Taiwan has no choice but to purchase old nuclear subs from the US.

The Taiwanese ought to try it with Japan. The Harushios are a capable design, and new Oyashios are one of the most advanced SSK designs in the world. It would be in Japan's strategic interest to see Taiwan having a capable submarine force counterbalancing the rising powers of the PLAN in East and South China Seas.

Originally Posted by crobato

I see it basically as---

The US won't make diesel submarines for Taiwan.

The countries that make diesel submarines won't sell for Taiwan.

Ergo, Taiwan has no choice but to purchase old nuclear subs from the US.

Right. There are already 12 decommissioned LA calss subs, and some hadn't been cut up yet - if ROCN gets them they'll still need refueling & upgrades.
I don't know how old is this info.:

USS OMAHA was the fifth LOS ANGELES-class attack submarine. Decommissioned and stricken from the Navy list on October 5, 1995, the submarine is now berthed at the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard in Bremerton, Wash., awaiting scrapping.
USS BIRMINGHAM was the sixth LOS ANGELES - class fast attack submarine. The ship was decommissioned and stricken from the Navy list on July 29, 1996, and is now berthed at the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard in Bremerton, Wash, awaiting scrapping.
USS GROTON was the seventh LOS ANGELES - class attack submarine. Decommissioned and stricken from the Navy list on November 7, 1997, the GROTON is currently berthed at the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, Portsmouth, NH, awaiting disposal through the Nuclear Powered Ship and Submarine Recycling Program.
USS BIRMINGHAM was the eighth submarine in the LOS ANGELES class and the sixth ship of that class decommissioned.
USS BIRMINGHAM was homeported in Pearl Harbor, HI. and is now located at the Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard, Pearl Harbor, Hi.
USS NEW YORK CITY was the ninth LOS ANGELES class attack submarine and was homeported in Pearl Harbor, HI. Stricken from the Navy list on April 30, 1997, the submarine is scheduled to be disposed of by submarine recycling.
USS INDIANAPOLIS was the tenth LOS ANGELES class attack submarine and was homeported in Pearl Harbor, HI. Decommissioned: December 22, 1998
[no further info.]
USS PHOENIX was the 15th ship in the LOS ANGELES - class of nuclear powered attack submarine. Decommissioned and stricken from the Navy list on July 29, 1998, the PHOENIX is now berthed at the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard in Portsmouth, NH, awaiting scrapping.
USS BALTIMORE was the 17th LOS ANGELES-class submarine. On July 10, 1998, BALTIMORE was decommissioned and stricken from the Navy list after almost 16 years of service. The submarine is scheduled to be scrapped.
USS PORTSMOUTH was the 20th LOS ANGELES class attack submarine and the 15th ship in that class built by Electric Boat in Groton, CT. On June 6, 2002, USS PORTSMOUTH sunk the former USS OKINAWA (LPH 3) during a COMSUBPAC SINKEX off the US west coast. The PORTSMOUTH was last homeported in San Diego, Calif. Decommissioned: September 10, 2004
[no further info.]
USS ATLANTA was the 25th LOS ANGELES - class fast attack submarine and the fifth naval vessel to carry the name. During her career she completed six deployments to the Mediterranean Sea and three deployments to the western Atlantic. USS ATLANTA was the first submarine certified to employ the MK-48 torpedo and both Harpoon and Tomahawk missiles. She was also the first nuclear-powered submarine assigned to directly support an amphibious ready group. Decommissioned and stricken from the Navy list on December 16, 1999, the ATLANTA is now berthed at the Norfolk Naval Shipyard in Portsmouths, Va., awaiting scrapping.
USS SALT LAKE CITY was the 29th LOS ANGELES-class Attack Submarine and was deactivated on October 26, 2005, at San Diego, Calif. [no further info.]

http://navysite.de/submarine.htm
I'm sure some of them are in very good shape since they didn't have 2nd refuelings, like the USS PORTSMOUTH. Even those with VL tubes for SLCMs can be modified for ASMs or the tubes removed/sealed up- but I don't think any of those were decomissioned yet!.

The problem to having nuclear subs in the ROCN is far from merely getting them - operating them would be no less daunting a problem. Achieving the kind of stringency and care of operations needed in handling nuclear subs come only from many years of experience. I think that all the expense and trouble to getting nuclear subs and translating them into operational capability isn't worth the payoffs for the ROCN.

You can remove the Tomahawk capability from the submarines by removing all equipment that is associated with the Tomahawk capability. A similar thing was done when Canada purchased the Victoria class (ex RN Upholder) submarines, where the Sub-Harpoon capability was taken out of the submarine by the removal of the associated launch hardware.

Originally Posted by guitarjeff

The Taiwanese ought to try it with Japan. The Harushios are a capable design, and new Oyashios are one of the most advanced SSK designs in the world. It would be in Japan's strategic interest to see Taiwan having a capable submarine force counterbalancing the rising powers of the PLAN in East and South China Seas.

Thing is I don't believe the Japanese actually export arms - they're probably restricted by law. So that would only leave help with design and production. Even then I don't think Japan would want to sacrifice improving relations with China even if it was able to do that.

Japan may help Taiwan out directly or indirectly in case of war, but during peace-time it won't - unless there is a massive bust-up between Beijing and Tokyo, far worse than anything seen before.

As to the report itself, I doubt very much that the Taiwanese legislative would authorise the purchase of SSNs from the US, unless they were massively overhauled and had a fair price-tag. I doubt the US could offer both those things. So the hunt for SSKs will continue.

(It's worth noting that the author of the article may well have confused himself over SSNs - journalists frequently post misleading articles when it comes to defence out of ignorance or lack of research.)

In my opinion the US will not sell the ROC LA class subs...Why?

Simple. The US is more than likely fearful in the event of PRC and ROC re-unification the subs would fall into the hands of the PRC. I don't care how many are de-comissioned it ain't gonna happen. Never.

Has the US ever sold off a nuke sub sub of any class? Nope. Not one. The US does not want this technology out of it's hands.

Let's say the ROC gets a couple LA class..How long will it take to train the crew? The USN nuke power school is 18+ months long for enlisted men. Very intensive.... Look at what the officers go through;

http://www.navy.com/officer/nuclear

How is the ROC going to do required maintance & repair them if any problems occur with the nuke plant? They have no nuke capable shipyard. When it come time to re-fuel them..then What?

Before the ROC even thinks about buying a nuke sub all these factors must be taken into consideration.

Originally Posted by bd popeye

Has the US ever sold off a nuke sub sub of any class? Nope. Not one. The US does not want this technology out of it's hands.
Let's say the ROC gets a couple LA class..How long will it take to train the crew? The USN nuke power school is 18+ months long for enlisted men. Very intensive....
How is the ROC going to do required maintance & repair them if any problems occur with the nuke plant? They have no nuke capable shipyard. When it come time to re-fuel them..then What?

The technology is already out!

If the Type 093 were to approach the acoustic performance of the Project 671RTM (Victor III), it would be superior to early SSN 688 Los Angeles class SSNs. Though not as good as the latest SSN 21 Seawolf and SSN 774 Virginia, the Type 093 would constitute a remarkable advance over the widely acknowledged poor acoustic performance of the Type 091. ..
the "Improved Akula / Akula II and the new Severodvinsk SSNs have capabilities comparable with the U.S. Los Angeles and Seawolf attack submarines. All other Russian subs possess significantly weaker capabilities. (Source: Jane's Fighting Ships, 1996-1997) http://www.cdi.org/issues/naval/seawolf.html
The British SSN is the Trafalgar-class. This class of seven boats is considered on par with the Los Angeles class. Armed with five 21-inch torpedo tubes, the Trafalgar carries Spearfish torpedoes, along with the Harpoon and Tomahawk missiles.
http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/200471823.asp

Taiwan's present nuclear capacity, comprising six units, is 4,884MW.

http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/2006/03/1813965

http://www.power-technology.com/projects/lungmen/
New diesel subs are quiter than the nuclear ones anyway.

One of Australia's Collins class submarines has hunted down and "killed" a state-of-the-art United States nuclear submarine in a series of mock attacks during an underwater warfare exercise off Hawaii.

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/20...?oneclick=true

Besides, the US sold many other types of advanced sytems to nations that became or may become unfriendly- Iran, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Venezuela, and Taiwan itself- the Kidd DDGs have advanced radar system! So, either the Americans wait indefinitely for that order of 8 SSKs and make no $$$, or make some real $$$ by selling some old SSNs and hope to keep Taiwan in its orbit!
As for nuclear maintance & repair, they can train their personnel at their plants like other nuclear navies do.
And Japan has nuclear power plants too- if the Taiwanese encounter problems, they'll know whom to call for help on this also!

Yes the technology is already out..

If the Type 093 were to approach the acoustic performance of the Project 671RTM (Victor III), it would be superior to early SSN 688 Los Angeles class SSNs.

"If it's and buts were candy and nuts we'd all have a Merry Christmas"

Don't believe the hype. My son is an STG1(Sonar tech first class) on active duty with the USN. He has told me more than once that the hardest nuke boat to find are Us built ones because of their superior dappening techniques. He says "other countries" nuke subs don't come close. I stand on what he says. He has 8 years experience. My son once tracked a PLAN nuke sub for 8 continous hours. He will not say what type it was.

The ROC will not have nuke subs any time in the near future.