An interesting news report from last month.

No idea how much of it is accurate.

Citing a newly released quadrennial defense review, the reports said the Air Force will develop a new generation of warplanes with advanced features such as stealth, long-range flight and aerial refueling abilities, and the capability of launching missiles against land targets or ships…

Meanwhile, military sources said that indigenous submarine and warplane development projects will cost an estimated NT$500 billion.

http://focustaiwan.tw/news/aipl/201303130039.aspx

If true, this directly mirrors South Africas position, in that the two big ticket items that were hard to source and that truly required proper sustained funding and development were a fighter jet and submarine.

Taiwan has advantages in that although pressure is applied by China, there isn’t actually blanket global sanctions on them that would lead to massive fines and jail time for sanctions busters as was actually the case with South Africa, which faced far greater hurdles and still managed to put a sub and fighter programme in place.

The main problem is funding obviously, as indigineous developments without the ability to export are going to be expensive.

Well because I don’t think you know what you are talking about, not an insult just an observation.

Now Ching Kuo

Quickly then, before the Ching Kuo…

I was an infantryman, not a submariner.

A very good friend of mine was in subs for almost 30 years. We talk often in depth, often around a bbq, as it is interesting to me.
I’ve also been fortunate enough to have gone onboard a sub he served on.
Through him, I’ve met and chatted to other submariners, including one who was involved peripherally on South Africas project to build the Type 209 during the Apartheid era.
From purely a blueprints level, all the necessary infrastructure and technology was eventually put in place to construct the Type 209.
An example was Project RAKA, which sought to radically upgrade the Command and Control and electronics systems on the Daphne class boats. This was then followed up by Project NICKLES, which were new generation Command and Control and electronics systems for the indigineous Type 209.
Parts of these new systems found it’s way into the Daphne boats eventually in the 1990’s.
Other parts of the submarine programme were dealt with under various Projects.

The only thing stopping construction was the end of the Cold War and the drawdown in the defence budget pending the dismantling of Apartheid.
Not the ability to build which was already finalised and about to commence, the welding and construction of the pressure hull, nor the scarcity of components that needed to be purchased.

I’m fully aware of the issues surrounding submarine construction, especially those programmes that often did not enjoy the full support of the OEM as in the initial South African sub programme and Argentine sub programme, and the difficulties they faced…

The MTU engines or derivitives are manufactured in more than one country. Indeed, Taiwan has a company manufacturing and trading in parts for the MTU 396, which is used in the Type 209.
SEMT Pielstick diesels are made in 9 different countries worldwide, and were a subsidiary of MAN and MTU before becoming wholly MAN owned. They also make submarine engines. Werkspoor powers the Taiwanese Hai Lung class (Zwaardvis) and Zwaardvis themselves, SEMT Pelstick the dimensionally similar follow on Walrus class.
SEMT Pielstick also powers Taiwans La Fayette class destroyers.
Tognum (MTU and MB) has supplied diesels to the Taiwanese navy for the Kuang Hua VI missile boats, which is still being built.

Propulsion is an incestous world, and money has always talked there.

Component level aquisitions are quite easy, even when hamstrung by politics.
Money has always talked.

You assumed too much.

I’ll say that constructing a submarine in Taiwan is well within their capability, but requires funding, cohesive planning and imaginitive supply of parts not made locally.
What they need to do is take a close look at how Sweden managed their submarine programme over the years.

Draken – 6 built – 1960 to 1962
Sjoormen – 5 built – 1967 to 1969
Nacken – 3 built – 1978 to 1981
Vastergotland – 4 built – 1986 to 1990
Gotland – 3 built – 1992 to 1996
A26 – pending

Times between construction were utilised for comprehensive refits and modernising.

Taiwan doesn’t have to model that exactly, but could start off with limited run of 3 or 4 boats.
Batch 2 would be improved models based on operating experience.
Batch 3 an improvement again.
The Hai Lung in for comprehensive modernising and refit in between, whilst the the next generation boat is readied for production sometime in the future, retaining core skills.

Not rocket science, but will require discipline and consistent funding.

Of course, all this may one day be completely moot if there is a joining together of Taiwan and China…

Were you a submariner?

On to the Ching Kuo…

Nice tantrum there Wilhem, really grown up. I dared to say the great Wilhelm isn’t all up to speed on the subject you threw a huge hissy fit. I haven’t seen you quote one cited article, I did…that article clearly lays out time and again companies that were prepared to sell and are no-longer going to. I totally agree the other main barrier is politics but that doesn’t change the fact that nobody outside America wants to help with Submarines and the Americans are in no real position to supply anything off the shelf.

Rather then actually make a reply with any substance a nice long rant of cut and paste quotes and insults…big man I am clapping my hands here.

Any conflict is in your mind and any shifted goalposts are yours. You seem to struggle with comprehension, I totally agree there have been defence sales in the past and companies keen to sell submarines and their designs…where are they now? Come on as you are so keen on evidence…where are they now. I keep on saying NOW! You do understand that? Or are you going to dodge that again and have another childish rant. I agreed the way forward is domestic and have written much about that in the past. But it is well reported they need help and it isn’t forthcoming…NOW. There is that word again…NOW. Of course in your world a few experts is all that is needed. Come on how about a list of foreign submarine manufacturers queuing up to help out Taiwan.

I suppose I am a last word Johnny but it does make you look more stupid.

Want to have another childish tantrum, I am game for a laugh.

Grow up

Good grief…

Actually, it’s making you a bit of a laughing stock.

The thread is here in all it’s glory for others to read.

Your last post has all the indications of a person who has lost control of himself as well as the argument, if there indeed was one from your side.
The very first put down or insult is from you in the thread (post#19) to a perfectly polite post from me.
Perhaps you need to step away from your computer, or stop what it is you’re doing at the moment.

Instead of trying to recover from your previous posts in the thread, can you try and mention something about what the thread is actually about?

The Ching Kuo.

Actually no I am going to add one thing! That post is hilarious Wilhelm! Talk about carrying on with the same line when you don’t get your own way! You clearly didn’t read my answers as I didn’t concede what you think I have! Wow talk about stubborn!

Childish and stubborn! You still haven’t a clue about how difficult Submarines are to build…

Not a clue

You simply can’t help yourself, can you?
The debating skills of a young child.:rolleyes:

Here’s what I said earlier:

You also appear to be the type of poster that needs the last word in, even when proved wrong, and have resorted to moving the goalposts.

You have been proven wrong when you said that:

Countries that were happy to sell Taiwan equipment wouldn’t even dare now!

Frankly I don’t think you know about what you are talking about Wilhelm.

Those tiny orders mean nothing

It is also well reported that nobody wants to sell them a design or give them any help!

(your one and only link disproves this)

The Italians wanted to sell some submarines in 2003…great HDW of Germany wanted to sell a submarine or two even more recently!

It is also well reported that nobody wants to sell them a design or give them any help!

You clearly have no idea how complicated submarines to build and seem to think that a few rogue designers are enough!

You have found to be wrong, I took the time actually cite what I was saying with a link

:rolleyes:

I haven’t moved any goalposts just pointing out things that are well known

As for getting the last word in

Get the last word I honestly don’t care

Actually no I am going to add one thing! That post is hilarious Wilhelm! Talk about carrying on with the same line when you don’t get your own way! You clearly didn’t read my answers as I didn’t concede what you think I have! Wow talk about stubborn!

Childish and stubborn! You still haven’t a clue about how difficult Submarines are to build…

Not a clue

You couldn’t make this stuff up, it’s so hilarious.:highly_amused:

A real “last word johnny”, who posted a link conflicting with your point, leading to you contradicting yourself, followed by a shifting of the goalposts.

Now that you’ve finished dribbling on your shirt front in public for all the world to see, care to re-read the thread?
Repeated exclamation marks, shifting of the goalposts, and the last word in do not actually constitute coherent, intelligent points.

Now, can you stick to the thread title after that mess?

The Ching Kuo.

Those tiny orders mean nothing and those countries since have stopped defence deals with Taiwan.

You keep replying about the domestic Submarine program which I agree is the only way forward and is well reported about. It is also well reported that nobody wants to sell them a design or give them any help! I even put a link in to a report on said matter which you chose to ignore!

So no not a dogmatic mantra. Just a better understanding of well reported evidence that you choose to ignore.

You keep on blathering on about individuals which is all very well but isn’t enough for a submarine.

The Italians wanted to sell some submarines in 2003…great HDW of Germany wanted to sell a submarine or two even more recently! Neither countries want to now which is what I am trying to explain to you! In the last five years international defence sales to Taiwan have been drying up!

The defence feasibility study for domestic submarine production in Taiwan you talk about was disputed by the US DOD, there was even a link to that report in THIS forum a few weeks back. IT WAS DISCUSSED!

So don’t accuse me of dogmatic mantras! You clearly have no idea how complicated submarines to build and seem to think that a few rogue designers are enough! You ignore a cited article plus god knows many others if you use some Google-fu pointing out that nobody is prepared to sell to Taiwan anymore except the US and even then suppliers in the country and Congress have been reluctant to do it.

Again short of substance, opinion only, and no links to your opinions.

You started this off with the debatable tactic of saying:

Frankly I don’t think you know about what you are talking about Wilhelm.

I have shown you many examples from the last few years where complete weapons systems are being sold to Taiwan, including non US systems.
Why do you keep ignoring the evidence in front of you?:confused:

I have given multiple examples of how technical designs or solutions, blueprints, and technical personel or designers are available to Taiwan, should it choose to go down the route of indigineous production.

Other posters are welcome to peruse the thread and note the multiple examples I’ve given, some ongoing at present.
You have been high on opinion only, mistaking this opinion of yours for fact.

The single link apart from your opinion actually goes on to contradict your standpoint by confirming that Taiwan indeed has blueprints of sub designs, and also illustrates that companies and individuals have and are willing and capable of providing these.

To reiterate, you seem to have this dogmatic mantra repeated that absolutely nobody, anywhere, will provide weapons designs and knowhow, let alone take up contract employment in Taiwan in a design or technical capacity, even though I’ve proven the fallacy of this belief of yours.
Seeing as you blindly and blithely repeat your opinion, ignore the evidence in front of you, shift the goalposts when things don’t suit you, and started your discourse by lowering the tone of the debate with an allegation of ignorance, all indications are that you are approaching this with a dogmatic mantra.

You also appear to be the type of poster that needs the last word in, even when proved wrong, and have resorted to moving the goalposts.
Your original post, freely readable above, mentioned that nobody is able to provide weapons systems to Taiwan recently.
I proved this was not the case.
I also proved that technical knowhow and personel are available.
You have tried to refute this unsuccessfully, including attempting, bizarrely, to first dismiss the free movement of personel aspect, then ignore it.
I’ve shown that Taiwan could have had up to 8 European subs within the last decade, but political infighting scuppered this.

I’ve stated and will continue to state, due to the evidence, that technical knowhow, technical blueprints, and the free movement of people are available to Taiwan should they choose to go ahead with a weapons design, submarines included.
This will be expensive, and take determination, proper budgeting, and a cessation of political Taiwanese infighting.

In light of this, and to avoid boring the other forum members, let me get to the gist of the matter with a few simple questions:

1. Are some foreign companies willing/able to provide weapons systems, weapons blueprints, and technical knowhow to Taiwan at present, and within the last 5 years?
2. Are some US companies willing/able to provide weapons systems, weapons blueprints, and technical knowhow to Taiwan at present, and within the last 5 years?
3. Is China able to prevent foreign individuals from working in Taiwan?
4. Is China able to prevent foreign individuals from travelling to Taiwan?
5. Is China able to prevent Taiwanese nationals from studying abroad?
6. Is China able to prevent Taiwanese nationals from working abroad?

Frankly I don’t think you know about what you are talking about Wilhelm.

:rolleyes:

What a strange debating tactic, when you completely ignore the point made that you simply cannot legislate where individuals choose to work.

CM-32 was designed by Timoney Ireland, production started in 2007, ongoing.
Thunderbolt-2000 MRL based on the German MAN HX-81 8×8 military truck, production ongoing at present time.
AT-4, Swedish, built in the US for Taiwan.
APILAS, French, still bought recently.
35mm AA, Switzerland, upgraded 2009 to GDF-006 with AHEAD, 2009.
Patriot SAM deliveries/upgrades, US, underway.
P3C Orion, US, orderd 2009, deliveries 2013.
Eurocopter Super Puma, 3 delivered in 2010, with 17 more on option.
AIM120 AMRAAM, US, within the last 6 years.
F-16 upgrade, US, contract signed Sept 2012.
Stinger SAM, US, orders underway.
E-2 AWACS, US, last upgrade delivered March 2013.
Harpoon ASM, submarine launched and air launched versions, ordered 2008.
Osprey Class minehunter, US, delivered 2012.
Cheng Kung Class destroyer, US design, licence produced.
Javelin Missile, US, 2002 and 2010.
AH-64 Apache, US, 2010.
UH-60 Blackhawk, US, 2011.

Taiwan has stated 3 weeks ago that it is conducting a feasibility study into local sub construction.
Whilst mainland Chinese interference may hinder this, it will not prevent it if given the go-ahead.

These above examples are recent public domain examples, after a brief check, and do not reflect everything, particularly regarding electronics and subsidiary systems and various technical assistance. Being the obvious and the salient, it in no way reflect what goes on behind the scenes.

The main problem is Taiwanese political in-fighting, and budget allocation.

So, I will reiterate:

Taiwan can source technical know how and designs.
It can make use of the free movement of individual labour with regard to technical expertise and design.

To paraphrase your good self:

“Frankly I don’t think you know about what you are talking about Fedaykin”.

Unless you are willing to attempt to fly in the face of good reason and illustrate how you prevent the purchasing of technical knowledge and proven over and over again point of individuals excercising the right to move and work where they want to.

Just because the example I gave in the earlier post wrt the sale of technical designs and movement of labour in a previous post does not fit your opinion, does not make this invalid. In fact, it gives the perfect illustration that if Taiwan showeed the political will and budget allocation, these things are pefectly feasible, as they always have been and still are.

IMHO, of course.

Thanks thobbes, nice links.

Just illustrates that Taiwan had a bright period in the 80’s and 90’s, but haven’t really kicked on from there.

I know it’s expensive developing indiginious projects, but the stop/start/stop drip feed of weapons supply, or total refusal in many cases from traditional western suppliers should really have sunk in, one would have thought.

Would be interesting to see a “super” version of this ala the Super Hornet. Same type of rectangular intakes for example, with a centerline stealth weapons pod. Should be very doable in a reasonable time frame. Dunno about engine options though.

The original plan was for a developed F-CK-1 to follow on from the initial production batch, as far as I remember.

There was a more powerful engine developed for it, but with the advent of F-16’s finally allowed for sale to Taiwan, this engine option was cancelled.
The engine was to produce 12 000lbs (53kN).
The F-16 purchase also slashed the Ching Kuo programme from the original 256 ordered, down to the 130 actually produced.

There has been previous work on developed Ching Kuo designs, stretching all the way into studies for a completely new design.

IMHO, Taiwan needs to understand that it should develop it’s own fighter, and be wary of “last minute” offers that scupper economies of scale production and development runs of such a fighter.

The main problem is that Taiwan doesn’t spend particularly much on defence, as a measure of dollar per capita.
It’s half of that of Sweden who produce their own fighter, as a per capita measure, though in outright total it’s twice the amount. ($10 billion, off the top of my head)
So, plenty of scope to do it.
Taiwan has stated recently that it will not seek to match the mainland in quantity, but go for a much sleeker, high quality defence establishment.
It is all dependent on the political will though, not words.