Taiwan Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

Deleted member 675 · Jan 7, 2008

crobato said:
And what is the context of the remaining statements that I have said, huh? You duly edited them out.

Feel free to post the context - I wasn't going to regurgitate every word you said.

If you say one thing and mean another, the follow up is "what I meant was X" not "I never said".

8 subs won't make that much of a difference but 16, or 24, maybe down the decade or two

You mean Taiwan should build and then operate 16-24 at one time? I don't think it could afford to do that.

And how many times do I have to stuff it into your head that the USN does not appear to be willing to let any US shipyard make a diesel sub in the US again.

I have never disputed that at least parts of the USN is opposed to a US-build. I challenged you over how many submarines Taiwan needs and of what sort of standard (i.e. compare to an existing design).

The advantages of having a domestic industry is simple. You don't have to rely on foreign pressure and whims.

The disadvantage is that with a country like Taiwan, which would have zero export options due to Chinese pressure on the receiving nation, it would have to be supported 100% by the State.

The loss of domestic defense industry, read IDF, has not made Taiwan any easier to defend

Where did I say it had? I pointed out that local industry is only useful if it can be sustained.

Ask Mr. Wen Ho Lee.

That does not demonstrate that Taiwan is not trusted with US technology - you're throwing mud at the wall in the hope some of it will stick.

Go ahead and fault the KMT for something every party in any democracy would do, which is to shut down their opposition's proposal and submit their own.

But the KMT did not submit their own. For years they said "it is too expensive", "this will get us into a no-win arms race with China", etc and blocked the whole lot - they wouldn't even let the purchases be discussed in the defence committee! Then they did an about-face without public explanation.

Live with it buddy, that's part of being a democracy.

And part of a democracy is that it's unlikely a country like Taiwan is going to supply the money for 16-24 submarines.

That's the small frigate version, the baby version.

So?

It does not change the bottom line the US would not share their PARTICULAR implementation of said technologies.

Then, as I said, they get it from someone else.

Furthermore, by outsourcing, you will inflate the costs even further.

Taiwan would have to do the same in getting quietening tech, etc.

For crying out loud, there is not even a formal proposal made by Electric Boat or whoever.

The money was only made available a week ago - they weren't going to make hard proposals beforehand.

By the way, have you talked to Bryan C about this? You say you respect him a lot - maybe he has some insights that we might find interesting.

While you keep yapping and putting lip service on rather trivial actions such as money for "research", a new sub comes out from the mainland every two or three months.

What does that have to do with anything? As I said a while ago, Taiwan's lack of a submarine industry is down to the KMT - it's an historic issue.

you want this to be a symbolic test of US commitment to its dear allies.

Huh, what are you blithering about?

crobato · Jan 7, 2008

FuManChu said:
Feel free to post the context - I wasn't going to regurgitate every word you said.

If you say one thing and mean another, the follow up is "what I meant was X" not "I never said".

No you take my words out of context.

You mean Taiwan should build and then operate 16-24 at one time? I don't think it could afford to do that.

Did I say build them at one time, I said in another decade or two in the long run.

I have never disputed that at least parts of the USN is opposed to a US-build. I challenged you over how many submarines Taiwan needs and of what sort of standard (i.e. compare to an existing design).

You never challenged me on that. How do I know what Taiwan should need that's not my job. I would think and I believe most will agree that 8 submarines by 2015 vs. PLAN's development rate is hardly enough.

The disadvantage is that with a country like Taiwan, which would have zero export options due to Chinese pressure on the receiving nation, it would have to be supported 100% by the State.

That is something they are going to have to live with.

Where did I say it had? I pointed out that local industry is only useful if it can be sustained.

Tell that to the Israelis making the Merkava. Or the Japanese making their tanks and subs.

That does not demonstrate that Taiwan is not trusted with US technology - you're throwing mud at the wall in the hope some of it will stick.

Boy, you're so happy getting the little stuff. Taiwan asked for Arleigh Burkes at the turn of the century and it was denied.

The Wen Ho Lee case points to a dark side in this case that affects all others, that there is a streak of racism.

But the KMT did not submit their own. For years they said "it is too expensive", "this will get us into a no-win arms race with China", etc and blocked the whole lot - they wouldn't even let the purchases be discussed in the defence committee! Then they did an about-face without public explanation.

That's democracy for you. In that case, buying subs won't make that difference either.

And part of a democracy is that it's unlikely a country like Taiwan is going to supply the money for 16-24 submarines.

The US is a democracy and it built well over 50 submarines of a single class alone.

So?

It makes a difference because that is not what Taiwan originally wanted.

Then, as I said, they get it from someone else.

Which adds middlemen and would greatly raise the cost.

Taiwan would have to do the same in getting quietening tech, etc.

Taiwan can do it directly without middlemen and with direct control.

The money was only made available a week ago - they weren't going to make hard proposals beforehand.

Look. Australia is looking to spend 25 billion alone for their sub program to succeed the Collins. 62 and 110 million is just like tidywinks.

What does that have to do with anything? As I said a while ago, Taiwan's lack of a submarine industry is down to the KMT - it's an historic issue.

If they tried to get at least 90% of the blueprints for the Zvaardis, then they certainly had plans at one point to build a domestic sub.

Huh, what are you blithering about?

You certainly don't know what I am talking about. Attempts to manipulate an arms sale as a test of "friendship" is only going to get the Pentagon irate, e.g. that is eventually what happened to the Japan-F-22 issue.

Deleted member 675 · Jan 8, 2008

crobato said:
No you take my words out of context.

As I commented, re-post what you said and highlight how it shows I was taking your comments out of context. Saying "you take my words out of context" doesn't show anything.

Did I say build them at one time, I said in another decade or two in the long run.

Did I say to build them at one time? I said:

You mean Taiwan should build and then operate 16-24 at one time?

I.e. it would have 16-24 in service at any one time.

So, how many submarines at one time should Taiwan have? Remember older ships have to be decommissioned - you can't just build 20 boats over 20 years and expect the older ones to be still suitable for combat.

How do I know what Taiwan should need that's not my job.

You've been pontificating about what Taiwan should/should not be doing - of course you can comment. If you say Taiwan should have X number of submarines, it's pretty important to know what sort of comparable class they should be!

That is something they are going to have to live with.

Actually, they don't because they can decide it's not worth it. It's up to them.

Tell that to the Israelis making the Merkava. Or the Japanese making their tanks and subs.

You fail to note that Israel gets big bucks from Uncle Sam - it has a lot more scope to spend on defence. Japan has a big economy and can afford to support a large submarine fleet, such that it can keep things ticking over with a nice drum-beat.

Boy, you're so happy getting the little stuff.

No, I'm criticising you for throwing lots of random stuff in the hope some of it will strike the target. Be relevant and direct - circumstantial evidence proves nothing.

The Wen Ho Lee case points to a dark side in this case that affects all others, that there is a streak of racism.

That's your opinion. I don't believe it shows Taiwan isn't trusted with US tech.

That's democracy for you.

Irrelvant. You claimed that the KMT was "shutt[ing] down their opposition's proposal and submit their own." I indicated that they didn't submit their own proposals at all.

The US is a democracy and it built well over 50 submarines of a single class alone.

The US has the world's largest economy - of course it can afford to design and build lots of submarines! What a stupid comparison.

It makes a difference because that is not what Taiwan originally wanted.

You said that Taiwan wasn't trusted with the technology, yet they have been offered the radar, missiles, VLS (and doubtless more) - that rather suggests they're not worried that such key parts will get into the hands of the Chinese.

Which adds middlemen and would greatly raise the cost.... Taiwan can do it directly without middlemen and with direct control.

Middlemen often help get something you can't obtain directly. Also there is no data as to how much it would cost to use "middlemen" as you put it versus a Taiwanese build, so again your opinion only.

Look. Australia is looking to spend 25 billion alone for their sub program to succeed the Collins.

That would probably be for the whole project, not just design and construction. In any case, Australia has a defence budget of nearly $20 billion at only 2% of GDP - it can step up its spending a lot more than Taiwan can.

If they tried to get at least 90% of the blueprints for the Zvaardis, then they certainly had plans at one point to build a domestic sub.

And the KMT didn't follow-through why? Maybe because they decided it wasn't viable. Or are you suggesting the KMT-led government only became aware of the possibility of building submarines in Taiwan back in 1999?

You certainly don't know what I am talking about.

I don't because you said the following:

you want this to be a symbolic test....

I have never said or suggested that at all. Symbolism is irrelevant - what Taiwan needs is reliable submarines sooner rather than later.

If there's any symbolism going it's you thinking that it's better for Taiwan to sink billions into a local industry that probably will fail to progress far enough and have funding cut off by the legislative (to avoid throwing good money after bad), just because you like the idea of self-reliance.

As I suggested earlier, since you respect what Bryan C thinks (as do I) ask him what he thinks about the SSK project. Will the USN sabotage it such that the resulting boat will be of poor quality, will a US-build be possible, is Taiwan's only hope to build them, etc. If I ask I'm sure you'd complain I'd take what he said out of context - but I trust you to cut-and-paste exactly what he said.

crobato · Jan 8, 2008

FuManChu said:
As I commented, re-post what you said and highlight how it shows I was taking your comments out of context. Saying "you take my words out of context" doesn't show anything.

No you took my words out of context when I meant that in the long run, 8 is far from enough. 8 is not even enough right now.

Did I say to build them at one time? I said:

You mean Taiwan should build and then operate 16-24 at one time?

I.e. it would have 16-24 in service at any one time.

So, how many submarines at one time should Taiwan have? Remember older ships have to be decommissioned - you can't just build 20 boats over 20 years and expect the older ones to be still suitable for combat.

My god, you don't know very much do you? You only got four subs, and two of them are WWII vintage. These should have been retired long ago. The usual life span for a sub is about 30 years, and the Zvaardis is already more than half way that point. The Barbels which the Zvaardis was based from had a life span of 30 years.

You've been pontificating about what Taiwan should/should not be doing - of course you can comment. If you say Taiwan should have X number of submarines, it's pretty important to know what sort of comparable class they should be!

What I am saying is that Taiwan should have control of its own submarine destiny so that at least it can have the option of building any subs it needs without political obstacles.

Actually, they don't because they can decide it's not worth it. It's up to them.

You fail to note that Israel gets big bucks from Uncle Sam - it has a lot more scope to spend on defence. Japan has a big economy and can afford to support a large submarine fleet, such that it can keep things ticking over with a nice drum-beat.

Aw geez that has nothing to do with the Merkavas, since all what happened to the US aid is that it is recycled to buy US weapons. There is another reason for the US to be willing to give that amount.

Economy has nothing to do with it also. Germany makes a particular sub that is not exported. The Zvaardis is only exported once and Taiwan was it. The Dolphin and the Collins were unique classes. Australia is now looking to do its own sub program. Now go check with the nuclear subs, no one exports that except for Indian leases from Russia.

In fact it is no different if you have it made in the US shipyards, because that sub is going to be unique, which no one can buy, and which the USN isn't going to buy either. It will be a very limited run if ever if you are going to make concessions with the USN's nuclear sub faction.

No, I'm criticising you for throwing lots of random stuff in the hope some of it will strike the target. Be relevant and direct - circumstantial evidence proves nothing.

In the first place you are the one doing it with your question above. Like I said there are many weapons systems in the world that are not exported.

That's your opinion. I don't believe it shows Taiwan isn't trusted with US tech.

Frankly I think it does, at least with what is considered the cutting edge.

The US has the world's largest economy - of course it can afford to design and build lots of submarines! What a stupid comparison.

You know what your problem is? You think that freedom and a cheap price tag can go hand in hand.

Let me remind you that the US went into a massive debt which remains even today after massive buildup during Reagan's years.

You said that Taiwan wasn't trusted with the technology, yet they have been offered the radar, missiles, VLS (and doubtless more) - that rather suggests they're not worried that such key parts will get into the hands of the Chinese.

They have not been offered the creme de creme, which is the AEGIS SPY-1D version and the Arleigh Burke class. Taiwan requested that and it was refused until Taiwan is deemed "ready". Remember, Taiwan was withheld actual reciept of the AMRAAMs (they were stored in Guam) until the US confirms that the mainland is operationally fielding an equivalent.

Middlemen often help get something you can't obtain directly. Also there is no data as to how much it would cost to use "middlemen" as you put it versus a Taiwanese build, so again your opinion only.

Middlemen can push your costs significantly when you already cannot afford to buy one without middlemen.

That would probably be for the whole project, not just design and construction. In any case, Australia has a defence budget of nearly $20 billion at only 2% of GDP - it can step up its spending a lot more than Taiwan can.

The fact remains you have to pay for an entire project, not just design and construction, especially when it is an entirely new class of submarine that no one has, and no one is expected to buy.

And the KMT didn't follow-through why? Maybe because they decided it wasn't viable. Or are you suggesting the KMT-led government only became aware of the possibility of building submarines in Taiwan back in 1999?

Maybe they have a point that it is not really viable because the KMT feels that China is not an immediate threat. After all, ify you maintain the status quo, China won't do anything. They did not pursue the program not because they think that Taiwan cannot do subs, but because they believe the issue with the mainland can be resolved diplomatically.

So with that in mind, there is no point of buying it from the US is there, which by the way, isn't going to be cheaper than doing it locally. At least with local construction, the money gets to pay TAIWAN companies, and TAIWAN jobs.

In fact, when you pay for local programs, you can afford to pay even more because you know the money is only being circulated within the economy. That is also how US, Japan, China, etc,. can concievably afford such programs.

I don't because you said the following:

you want this to be a symbolic test....

I have never said or suggested that at all. Symbolism is irrelevant - what Taiwan needs is reliable submarines sooner rather than later.

Which I told you again and again, isn't going to happen because you chose the politically most obstructive path and it will not be the most cost effective path either.

If there's any symbolism going it's you thinking that it's better for Taiwan to sink billions into a local industry that probably will fail to progress far enough and have funding cut off by the legislative (to avoid throwing good money after bad), just because you like the idea of self-reliance.

You know the problem with you? You think that freedom can come with a cheap price tag, and not without some sweat and pain on your own. If you think you will be facing a serious threat, you arm for it, the percentage of what it takes out of the GDP is something you only worry when you are in the position of having survived. Which is the lesser of two evils, the other being you don't have to worry about it at all since in the first place, you have lost and been taken over.

Your comparison with other countries are very daffy, because after all in their mind, they're not facing direct threats. Now I don't really think China is a serious threat to Taiwan right now, but to the minds of the DPP it is. However, the DPP's actions are inconsistent with what you may expect if one is facing immediete threats at least in the context of their beliefs.

Deleted member 675 · Jan 9, 2008

crobato said:
You only got four subs, and two of them are WWII vintage.

Actually we have nine SSNs - Swiftsure and Trafalgar classes.

Aw geez that has nothing to do with the Merkavas, since all what happened to the US aid is that it is recycled to buy US weapons.

It has everything to do with them, because Israel is able to pump money into domestic projects it wouldn't have otherwise!

Germany makes a particular sub that is not exported.

Germany also makes submarines that are exported.

The Zvaardis is only exported once and Taiwan was it.

Tell me what happened to the Dutch submarine industry subsequently.

Now go check with the nuclear subs, no one exports that except for Indian leases from Russia.

The British submarine industry has been through some rough patches in recent years. The only thing that is securing Astute orders is the fact we need the skills for the future SSBN class.

which no one can buy

Why? One reason US companies and some politicians want this to go ahead is they think they can get into the export market.

Let me remind you that the US went into a massive debt which remains even today after massive buildup during Reagan's years.

Reagan was president during the Cold War. And what exactly are you suggesting - that Taiwan massively increases its national debt to pay for more spending? Where is it going to get the money to pay that off?

They have not been offered the creme de creme, which is the AEGIS SPY-1D version and the Arleigh Burke class.

SPY-1F is hardly an insignificant piece of technology. If the Taiwanese government or another organisation/individual were to leak SPY-1D to the Chinese, they would do the same with SPY-1F. I severely doubt that the Americans would be untroubled by the possibility of the latter happening such that they would offer it, and at the same time so troubled by the possibility of the former happening that they would refuse the SPY-1D.

Maybe they have a point that it is not really viable because the KMT feels that China is not an immediate threat.

The KMT requested and/or ordered new fighters, frigates, tanks, etc in the 1980s and 1990s. It was also looking to buy more submarines. So you're telling me that the KMT thought China was enough of a threat to justify all that spending, but not enough of a threat to develop a local submarine industry?

After all, ify you maintain the status quo, China won't do anything.

There is no status-quo - it changes on a daily basis given China's diplomatic, economic and military pressure.

you chose the politically most obstructive path

I am not the US or Taiwanese governments. You do know that, right?

You know the problem with you? You think that freedom can come with a cheap price tag, and not without some sweat and pain on your own.

Please don't misrepresent what I have said. I never said that at all.

Your problem is that you think defence spending equals freedom. How much of their wealth do Burma and North Korea spend on defence? A lot. But no one could say the people there are free. Democracy creates freedom - defence creates security. Two different things. And the price of democracy is that defence spending rarely becomes a priority of such magnitude that it severely drains funding from elsewhere.

Taiwan can probably spend more on defence, like 3.5% of GDP. But unless you're going to come up with some hard numbers and say Taiwan should spend X billion or X% of GDP, you're just taking the easy road which is to say "so-and-so must do more" without saying how more, how they can find the means to do it, etc. You'd make a good politician, actually.

Your comparison with other countries are very daffy, because after all in their mind, they're not facing direct threats.

The comparisons are not "daffy", because it is arguable how much more of a threat China is to Taiwan. The DPP use the possibility of war with China as a political tool. If the certainty were that high, the KMT would have been less obstructive in regards to defence spending requests. There is a justification for spending more, but not to the point where hospitals have to be closed for lack of funding, the national debt hugely expanded, etc.

crobato · Jan 9, 2008

FuManChu said:
Actually we have nine SSNs - Swiftsure and Trafalgar classes.

I was referring to Taiwan.

It has everything to do with them, because Israel is able to pump money into domestic projects it wouldn't have otherwise!

This has nothing to do if you can cost justify designing and making a tank solely for your own purpose. Otherwise, Israel can use M1A1s or Leopards.

Germany also makes submarines that are exported.

And they could have used those exported types for their own navy, right? Which does not beg the question why are they developing an entirely new class for their own use.

Tell me what happened to the Dutch submarine industry subsequently.

The Dutch isn't facing a serious threat. If this is still the Cold War, they would still be pumping out subs.

The British submarine industry has been through some rough patches in recent years. The only thing that is securing Astute orders is the fact we need the skills for the future SSBN class.

The British are no longer facing any threats. That's why they're cutting back across the board.

Why? One reason US companies and some politicians want this to go ahead is they think they can get into the export market.

That argument has been there since when other countries tried to buy subs from the US. Obviously the prospect of export orders does not compare to the loss of losing contracts from the USN. Once you have export orders, the pressure is on the USN to acquire SSKs at the expense of their SSNs.

You don't seem to get it do you?

Reagan was president during the Cold War. And what exactly are you suggesting - that Taiwan massively increases its national debt to pay for more spending? Where is it going to get the money to pay that off?

You can't go cheap with freedom right? Taiwan's defense expenditures per GDP has been falling down yearly since the 90s, even as its GDP goes up. Add to that, Taiwan has an enormous trade surplus and money reserves.

SPY-1F is hardly an insignificant piece of technology. If the Taiwanese government or another organisation/individual were to leak SPY-1D to the Chinese, they would do the same with SPY-1F. I severely doubt that the Americans would be untroubled by the possibility of the latter happening such that they would offer it, and at the same time so troubled by the possibility of the former happening that they would refuse the SPY-1D.

There is obviously something different between the 1F and the 1D to the respect why 1F is allowed, and 1D isn't.

The KMT requested and/or ordered new fighters, frigates, tanks, etc in the 1980s and 1990s. It was also looking to buy more submarines. So you're telling me that the KMT thought China was enough of a threat to justify all that spending, but not enough of a threat to develop a local submarine industry?

Back then, yes. China in the eighties and China in the 2000s are two different entities now. And like I said, if they acquired the blueprints for the Zvaardis, they were definitely planning to make them for their own during the early 90s.

There is no status-quo - it changes on a daily basis given China's diplomatic, economic and military pressure.

What a load of bull. China responds to the crap CSB is making but otherwise if you leave things alone, things don't happen.

I am not the US or Taiwanese governments. You do know that, right?

Yeah but you sure like to speak for the Taiwanese.

Please don't misrepresent what I have said. I never said that at all.

Your problem is that you think defence spending equals freedom. How much of their wealth do Burma and North Korea spend on defence? A lot. But no one could say the people there are free. Democracy creates freedom - defence creates security. Two different things. And the price of democracy is that defence spending rarely becomes a priority of such magnitude that it severely drains funding from elsewhere.

Taiwan can probably spend more on defence, like 3.5% of GDP. But unless you're going to come up with some hard numbers and say Taiwan should spend X billion or X% of GDP, you're just taking the easy road which is to say "so-and-so must do more" without saying how more, how they can find the means to do it, etc. You'd make a good politician, actually.

This has nothing to do with N. Korea or Burma. Their own spending is also dictated because they feel 'threatened'.

The comparisons are not "daffy", because it is arguable how much more of a threat China is to Taiwan. The DPP use the possibility of war with China as a political tool. If the certainty were that high, the KMT would have been less obstructive in regards to defence spending requests. There is a justification for spending more, but not to the point where hospitals have to be closed for lack of funding, the national debt hugely expanded, etc.

The fact of the matter is which you are in FREAKING DENIAL of that such a project alone would cost billions and billions in the long haul. You just allocated 62 million, and frankly that is a joke. It just shows you how really deep is the commitment to this program is.

Furthermore it hasn't even HIT you that making these submarines in the US would COST EVEN MORE if you have noticed the pattern of US weapons development lately, which always end up way past budget, and I mean way past budget. The fact remains that without the possibility of another buyer, the US shipyard would charge the development cost for the entire design on a just 8 submarines and that's going to kick the prices high. That forces a Catch 22 situation where you cannot afford the 8 subs and forces you to cut down the number, which will then raise the cost of each sub further.

You're trying to make it appear that making the subs in the US would be cost efficient when actually it won't given the recent historical record.

Making the subs locally is a drain to the budget yes, but all that money does is pay off Taiwanese jobs and companies, circulating the money within the economy. One reason why ships would cost so much in the US has been the decline of commercial ship orders, so to keep the shipyards going they are forced to charge more on their remaining contracts, which are military. There are also money going to pay lobbyists and rich corporate executives and stuff like that. On the other hand, Taiwan still has its share of the commercial ship industry and we know by record that Taiwan's manufacturing happens to be quite cost efficient.

The thing is, no matter what you're going to spend a huge amount of money so much of the economic issues you are raising looks dumb to me. But if I'm going to end up spending that much amount of money, at least it isn't just Taiwanese jobs I'm paying, I am also INVESTING on submarine manufacturing and technologies, and I will have a KNOWLEDGE BASE that is going to stay INSIDE TAIWAN and which I can keep for long term posterity and use that to develop a technological and manufacturing INDEPENDENCE. The money I spend on will have much greater long term benefits.

Deleted member 675 · Jan 10, 2008

crobato said:
I was referring to Taiwan.

Then don't use the word "you". You do know what it means, right?

This has nothing to do if you can cost justify designing and making a tank solely for your own purpose. Otherwise, Israel can use M1A1s or Leopards.

Israel CHOOSES to spend money on its own tank because it can AFFORD to thanks to AMERICAN MONEY.

Which does not beg the question why are they developing an entirely new class for their own use.

Because their industry can support it?

The Dutch isn't facing a serious threat.

I might be wrong, but I don't think the Dutch were operating more (or that many more) submarines in the 1980s when the Cold War was going on than in the 1990s afterwards.

The British are no longer facing any threats. That's why they're cutting back across the board.

No, the government is cutting back because it's too cheap to fund the military properly and making it fight two wars on a peace-time budget.

That argument has been there since when other countries tried to buy subs from the US. Obviously the prospect of export orders does not compare to the loss of losing contracts from the USN.... You don't seem to get it do you?

I do get it - you have ignored the fact that they WANT an export industry so will TRY to get it even if the USN causes the project to EVENTUALLY FAIL.

Taiwan's defense expenditures per GDP has been falling down yearly since the 90s, even as its GDP goes up.

That trend has started to reverse.

Add to that, Taiwan has an enormous trade surplus and money reserves.

A trade surplus does not indicate there is pots of money for spending. Money reserves can't be spent by the government on public spending on a whim.

There is obviously something different between the 1F and the 1D to the respect why 1F is allowed, and 1D isn't.

But they're both very valuable pieces of equipment! The idea the US is ok with China getting one and not the other is a joke. Stop digging yourself a hole and admit the fact 1F was made available shows Taiwan is trusted with a lot of high-tech stuff.

And like I said, if they acquired the blueprints for the Zvaardis, they were definitely planning to make them for their own during the early 90s.

Then why did nothing come of it? You keep avoiding this question.

China responds to the crap CSB is making but otherwise if you leave things alone, things don't happen.

What crap? Taiwan doesn't want to sit down and have the shit kicked out of it on the international stage? Taiwan doesn't want to have thousands of missiles pointed at it? Taiwan doesn't want to unify with a repressive autocracy as China demands? Oh yeah, blame the victim for wanting to live without fear.

Yeah but you sure like to speak for the Taiwanese.

Don't be so silly. I put forward an alternative POV - don't try to censor my observations.

This has nothing to do with N. Korea or Burma. Their own spending is also dictated because they feel 'threatened'.

Yeah, by their own people.

The fact of the matter is which you are in FREAKING DENIAL of that such a project alone would cost billions and billions in the long haul.

Again, please don't lie - you're worse than . I know that it will cost billions.

You just allocated

No, Taiwan just allocated. I think you need to go back to school, crobato. If you can't use words like "you" properly it just makes the conversation that much more difficult.

62 million, and frankly that is a joke. It just shows you how really deep is the commitment to this program is.

What's your problem? Taiwan has allocated a modest amount of money before construction can even be considered. The US wanted $200-350 million to get things started - a portion of that has been provided with more available. Most of the cost will be production and what happens afterwards - Taiwan doesn't have to pay billions up front just to get an idea of what the plan is. Even the US has indicated that.

Making the subs locally is a drain to the budget yes, but all that money does is pay off Taiwanese jobs and companies, circulating the money within the economy...........

crobato, the theory is great but practice never so. If it were as definitely beneficial with not that much risk involved then the KMT would have implimented it back in the 1990s at the latest when it could see no imports would be coming. The DPP would have also done something. The abscence of action under either party suggests the idea of Taiwanese-made submarines was back then a pipe-dream that would waste money on nothing.

That may change depending on how the US project goes. If the American administration can't sort something out with the USN then it may reconsider its objection to helping Taiwan make its own.

crobato · Jan 10, 2008

FuManChu said:
Then don't use the word "you". You do know what it means, right?

Israel CHOOSES to spend money on its own tank because it can AFFORD to thanks to AMERICAN MONEY.

What a childish response. Even if they had American money, why don't they just buy Abrams? Would that be any cheaper eh?

You don't do things just because you can afford it.

Because their industry can support it?

Because it is necessary.

I might be wrong, but I don't think the Dutch were operating more (or that many more) submarines in the 1980s when the Cold War was going on than in the 1990s afterwards.

You know, the Dutch will probably still be building submarines if the Cold War continued.

No, the government is cutting back because it's too cheap to fund the military properly and making it fight two wars on a peace-time budget.

Wrong. The Brits are cutting back because they can no longer justify it without a Cold War footing.

I do get it - you have ignored the fact that they WANT an export industry so will TRY to get it even if the USN causes the project to EVENTUALLY FAIL.

No you don't get it. YOU DONT GET IT AT ALL. The USN contracts are worth far more collectively---not just subs, but surface ships, maintenance contracts, etc,---even things that are not related to subs---than any export contract.

YOU DONT GET IT AT ALL THAT ONE COUNTRY AFTER ANOTHER HAS BEEN DENIED. You don't get it all that there is a long history behind this already.

That trend has started to reverse.

By doing what? By doing a bit more of the too little? How does that really reverse the trend?

A trade surplus does not indicate there is pots of money for spending. Money reserves can't be spent by the government on public spending on a whim.

Listen to yourself. You're going to be spending loads of money on overpriced submarines anyway. You have to find the means no matter what.

But they're both very valuable pieces of equipment! The idea the US is ok with China getting one and not the other is a joke. Stop digging yourself a hole and admit the fact 1F was made available shows Taiwan is trusted with a lot of high-tech stuff.

BS. Taiwan is not even entrusted with the JSF. SPY-1F is a downgraded version of the SPY-1D. It is still a capable system but it is not the same as powerful as the 1D.

Then why did nothing come of it? You keep avoiding this question.

I did not avoid the question. Why did nothing come out of it? Because someone else took power, and every Taiwan military project went downhill afterward.

What crap? Taiwan doesn't want to sit down and have the shit kicked out of it on the international stage? Taiwan doesn't want to have thousands of missiles pointed at it? Taiwan doesn't want to unify with a repressive autocracy as China demands? Oh yeah, blame the victim for wanting to live without fear.

If that is so, then why are Taiwanese businessmen and companies heading to this repressive autocracy to build factories one after another? In fact, Taiwanese are among the BIGGEST investors in China. Wine, dine, karoake, and even have business partnerships with Communist officials or sons of Communist officials? Why are thousands of Taiwanese themselves going to this repressive autocracy to find jobs? Why do thousands of Taiwanese go to this repressive autocracy for vacation, month by month, year by year? Why do they buy properties in this repressive autocracy and make it their second home. Heck, even go there to retire.

Don't be so silly. I put forward an alternative POV - don't try to censor my observations.

BS. How the hell can you represent or know what Taiwan really feels like when you're not even there. Frankly I do deal with Taiwanese every day, and their attitude to the missiles are "what missiles?"

Yeah, by their own people.

Burma and N. Korea are far from the position to revolt even with the repression.

Again, please don't lie - you're worse than . I know that it will cost billions.

It would seriously cost a lot of billions.

No, Taiwan just allocated. I think you need to go back to school, crobato. If you can't use words like "you" properly it just makes the conversation that much more difficult.

The allocation is a joke.

What's your problem? Taiwan has allocated a modest amount of money before construction can even be considered. The US wanted $200-350 million to get things started - a portion of that has been provided with more available. Most of the cost will be production and what happens afterwards - Taiwan doesn't have to pay billions up front just to get an idea of what the plan is. Even the US has indicated that.

So even if this story is believable, which really sounds stupid, you allocated 62 million then try to decide to allocate 100 million next year, so how many years does it take for you to even START a proposal?

What really stupid about all this, you are forced to allocate even hundreds of million of money just for a freaking proposal in paper. If a proposal already costs that much money, imagine the research and development costs, and imagine the actual building costs. Then imagine the maintenance costs.

crobato, the theory is great but practice never so. If it were as definitely beneficial with not that much risk involved then the KMT would have implimented it back in the 1990s at the latest when it could see no imports would be coming. The DPP would have also done something. The abscence of action under either party suggests the idea of Taiwanese-made submarines was back then a pipe-dream that would waste money on nothing.

That may change depending on how the US project goes. If the American administration can't sort something out with the USN then it may reconsider its objection to helping Taiwan make its own.

The real pipe dream is that you think you can succeed by following a loser's philosophy, that is depend on others rather than standing up to yourself. Look at the IDF project. First prototype flew in 1987 and in 1991, began in operative service. That is four years.

In seven years from 2001 to 2008, you have not even freaking begun a sub project not even a proposal. How many YEARS will it take you just to cough up the money for a proposal, which still faces a more than a serious possibility it would be shut down by the USN?

To be honest, the US administration has lost its respect to the leaders you have in Taiwan, and you can see that in the US attitude.

crobato · Jan 10, 2008

FuManChu said:
Then don't use the word "you". You do know what it means, right?

Israel CHOOSES to spend money on its own tank because it can AFFORD to thanks to AMERICAN MONEY.

What a childish response. Even if they had American money, why don't they just buy Abrams? Would that be any cheaper eh?

You don't do things just because you can afford it.

Because their industry can support it?

Because it is necessary. You have no idea at all, that even with American funding cut off, they would still do it. In fact, they were already doing a lot of things even before they started getting American money. Why would they even bother with the expense of maintaining a defense industry of their own, when they can all go buy 100% US. No need for Merkavas, Saar, Barak, Uzis, ELTAs...

I might be wrong, but I don't think the Dutch were operating more (or that many more) submarines in the 1980s when the Cold War was going on than in the 1990s afterwards.

You know, the Dutch will probably still be building submarines if the Cold War continued.

No, the government is cutting back because it's too cheap to fund the military properly and making it fight two wars on a peace-time budget.

Wrong. The Brits are cutting back because they can no longer justify it without a Cold War footing.

I do get it - you have ignored the fact that they WANT an export industry so will TRY to get it even if the USN causes the project to EVENTUALLY FAIL.

No you don't get it. YOU DONT GET IT AT ALL. The USN contracts are worth far more collectively---not just subs, but surface ships, maintenance contracts, etc,---even things that are not related to subs---than any export contract.

YOU DONT GET IT AT ALL THAT ONE COUNTRY AFTER ANOTHER HAS BEEN DENIED. You don't get it all that there is a long history behind this already.

That trend has started to reverse.

By doing what? By doing a bit more of the too little? How does that really reverse the trend?

A trade surplus does not indicate there is pots of money for spending. Money reserves can't be spent by the government on public spending on a whim.

Listen to yourself. You're going to be spending loads of money on overpriced submarines anyway. You have to find the means no matter what.

But they're both very valuable pieces of equipment! The idea the US is ok with China getting one and not the other is a joke. Stop digging yourself a hole and admit the fact 1F was made available shows Taiwan is trusted with a lot of high-tech stuff.

BS. Taiwan is not even entrusted with the JSF. SPY-1F is a downgraded version of the SPY-1D. It is still a capable system but it is not the same as powerful as the 1D.

Then why did nothing come of it? You keep avoiding this question.

I did not avoid the question. Why did nothing come out of it? Because someone else took power, and every Taiwan military project went downhill afterward.

What crap? Taiwan doesn't want to sit down and have the shit kicked out of it on the international stage? Taiwan doesn't want to have thousands of missiles pointed at it? Taiwan doesn't want to unify with a repressive autocracy as China demands? Oh yeah, blame the victim for wanting to live without fear.

If that is so, then why are Taiwanese businessmen and companies heading to this repressive autocracy to build factories one after another? In fact, Taiwanese are among the BIGGEST investors in China. Wine, dine, karoake, and even have business partnerships with Communist officials or sons of Communist officials? Why are thousands of Taiwanese themselves going to this repressive autocracy to find jobs? Why do thousands of Taiwanese go to this repressive autocracy for vacation, month by month, year by year? Why do they buy properties in this repressive autocracy and make it their second home. Heck, even go there to retire.

Don't be so silly. I put forward an alternative POV - don't try to censor my observations.

BS. How the hell can you represent or know what Taiwan really feels like when you're not even there. Frankly I do deal with Taiwanese every day, and their attitude to the missiles are "what missiles?"

Yeah, by their own people.

Burma and N. Korea are far from the position to revolt even with the repression.

Again, please don't lie - you're worse than . I know that it will cost billions.

It would seriously cost a lot of billions.

No, Taiwan just allocated. I think you need to go back to school, crobato. If you can't use words like "you" properly it just makes the conversation that much more difficult.

The allocation is a joke.

What's your problem? Taiwan has allocated a modest amount of money before construction can even be considered. The US wanted $200-350 million to get things started - a portion of that has been provided with more available. Most of the cost will be production and what happens afterwards - Taiwan doesn't have to pay billions up front just to get an idea of what the plan is. Even the US has indicated that.

So even if this story is believable, which really sounds stupid, you allocated 62 million then try to decide to allocate 100 million next year, so how many years does it take for you to even START a proposal?

What really stupid about all this, you are forced to allocate even hundreds of million of money just for a freaking proposal in paper. If a proposal already costs that much money, imagine the research and development costs, and imagine the actual building costs. Then imagine the maintenance costs.

crobato, the theory is great but practice never so. If it were as definitely beneficial with not that much risk involved then the KMT would have implimented it back in the 1990s at the latest when it could see no imports would be coming. The DPP would have also done something. The abscence of action under either party suggests the idea of Taiwanese-made submarines was back then a pipe-dream that would waste money on nothing.

That may change depending on how the US project goes. If the American administration can't sort something out with the USN then it may reconsider its objection to helping Taiwan make its own.

The real pipe dream is that you think you can succeed by following a loser's philosophy, that is depend on others rather than standing up to yourself. Look at the IDF project. First prototype flew in 1987 and in 1991, began in operative service. That is four years.

In seven years from 2001 to 2008, you have not even freaking begun a sub project not even a proposal. How many YEARS will it take you just to cough up the money for a proposal, which still faces a more than a serious possibility it would be shut down by the USN?

To be honest, the US administration has lost its respect to the leaders you have in Taiwan, and you can see that in the US attitude.

Deleted member 675 · Jan 10, 2008

crobato said:
What a childish response.

Well I'm having difficulty making you understand. I'm obviously going to try different means of getting through if the default position proves fruitless.

Even if they had American money, why don't they just buy Abrams?

Because they want to make a tank that fits their needs. They have the money so they can afford it.

You don't do things just because you can afford it.

But being able to afford to do something is rather important.

Because it is necessary. You have no idea at all, that even with American funding cut off, they would still do it.

Germany doesn't get American funding - I was quoting your comment on their submarines.

You know, the Dutch will probably still be building submarines if the Cold War continued.

It's easy to say that, but even during the Cold War the Netherlands did not operate that many more submarines than it does now (if it ever did). The four Zwaardvis submarines of the Cold War were succeeded by four Walrus submarines that are still in service. Or do you have evidence that the Dutch government would have increased the numbers of submarines that it operated had the Cold War continued?

Wrong. The Brits are cutting back because they can no longer justify it without a Cold War footing.

Actually, I'm right. We had the "peace dividend" years ago - there is no need to reduce the budget further as a percentage of GDP. It's something like 2.2-2.4% of GDP or there abouts - hardly a Cold War footing.

YOU DONT GET IT AT ALL.

Be more careful when typing - avoid hitting the CAPS lock.

The USN contracts are worth far more collectively---not just subs, but surface ships, maintenance contracts, etc,---even things that are not related to subs---than any export contract.

So why do they want it? Why were so many companies eager to meet the Taiwanese legislative delegation who arrived last year on a fact-finding mission?

YOU DONT GET IT AT ALL THAT ONE COUNTRY AFTER ANOTHER HAS BEEN DENIED.

CAPS lock again. So if it won't happen, why did the KMT authorise any money for it? Are you saying they're frivolous with public money?

By doing what? By doing a bit more of the too little?

What does "by doing a bit more of the too little" mean? That's jibberish.

You're going to be spending loads of money on overpriced submarines anyway.

Taiwan is buying the submarines, not the UK. Look I can't spend time teaching you basic English - please take some remedial lessons or something before you come back.

Taiwan is not even entrusted with the JSF.

"Not even trusted"? What planet are you living on? JSF is a big deal.

SPY-1F is a downgraded version of the SPY-1D. It is still a capable system but it is not the same as powerful as the 1D.

My original question stands. If the US is so concerned over the leak of the 1D to China that it won't sell it to Taiwan, why would it authorise the 1F? Please don't try to imply that the US wouldn't worry about the 1F being stolen by China.

Why did nothing come out of it? Because someone else took power

So I trust you have direct evidence that the KMT administration was working on a domestic submarine? How much money was spent on it and when did the plan start? How far was it developed by 2000? I'm rather interested.

If that is so, then why are Taiwanese businessmen and companies heading to this repressive autocracy to build factories one after another?

Because they don't have to live there and if they do money buys them what they need. Ordinary people don't have that luxury - they need to be able to express their grievances without threat of arrest or harrassment.

BS.

Don't swear - it's very unbecoming.

How the hell can you represent or know what Taiwan really feels like when you're not even there.

Are you there?

Frankly I do deal with Taiwanese every day, and their attitude to the missiles are "what missiles?"

I have contact with Taiwanese regularly myself and they are aware of it.

Burma and N. Korea are far from the position to revolt even with the repression.

Yes, because they don't want to be shot in the street like the Japanese reporter was last year in Burma.

So even if this story is believable...

What story - the one that the US asked for $200-350 million for the first stage? If you don't know that then you have no place discussing this.

What really stupid about all this, you are forced to allocate even hundreds of million of money just for a freaking proposal in paper.

Who said it was for a proposal in paper? I didn't. If you allege it is, please provide evidence.

is that you think you can succeed by following a loser's philosophy, that is depend on others rather than standing up to yourself.

So I guess China was following a loser's philosophy when it bought all that Russian stuff, right?

In seven years from 2001 to 2008, you have not even freaking begun a sub project not even a proposal.

And in the 50 years from 1950 to 2000 there wasn't a domestic project either. So what?

To be honest, the US administration has lost its respect to the leaders you have in Taiwan

I'd say they have more respect for the leaders of Taiwan than the leaders of China - the former is built on democracy, whilst the latter is just money.

Taiwan Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

Deleted member 675

Guest

crobato

Colonel

Deleted member 675

Guest

crobato

Colonel

Deleted member 675

Guest

crobato

Colonel

Deleted member 675

Guest

crobato

Colonel

crobato

Colonel

Deleted member 675

Guest