Taiwan diesel subs
Michael Yared
The Bush administration in April promised to sell Taiwan up to eight
diesel submarines to bolster the island's coastal defenses against a major
Chinese naval and missile buildup. Almost a year later, the Pentagon is
still figuring out how to do it. The United States last built a
diesel-electric submarine in 1958. Efforts to build the submarines with a
design or hull produced by other nations also have not panned out, because
of pressure from Beijing to block the sales. Now there is opposition to the
submarine deal from an unlikely source: the U.S. Navy. Submariners are
quietly lobbying against opening production of diesel submarines. They fear
that once the Pentagon gets back into the diesel-submarine business, it will
make it harder to get Congress to fund construction of big-ticket
nuclear-powered submarines. The reason is simple. The Navy can build four
very quiet diesel-electric submarines for the cost of one new Virginia-class
submarine.
Another option being considered for the Taiwan submarine deal is to
refurbish old diesel submarines with new equipment, although that option is
not favored by Taipei. Taiwan is said to favor building diesel submarines
with U.S. help and eventually building its own. Talks on the Taiwan
submarine deal are set for next month.
Mark Andrew Spence
for at least 20 years.
M.S.
"Michael Yared" <mya...@erols.com> wrote in message
news:a5mtl5$lmb$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
Brooks
Last I read in Defense News the plan was to find foreign sources for these
subs; according to this week's copy, the Navy has already put together a
list of options for Taiwan to consider, and no further action will be taken
until they have studied these and select their preferred course of action.
The article inferred that suppliers have already been contacted during the
development of the options. So I am not sure of the veracity of your conclusions
here...
Brooks
>
>
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
Check out our new Unlimited Server. No Download or Time Limits!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! ==-----
Sagaliba
>
> Last I read in Defense News the plan was to find foreign sources for these
> subs; according to this week's copy, the Navy has already put together a
> list of options for Taiwan to consider, and no further action will be taken
> until they have studied these and select their preferred course of action.
> The article inferred that suppliers have already been contacted during the
> development of the options. So I am not sure of the veracity of your conclusions
> here...
I think this is the article on the Washington Times a couple days ago,
and I think it is talking about "where" exactly the subs can be built
(not just the design or components).
A third country? Unlikely
US? Opposed by USN
Taiwan? They have never built any sub before.
Brooks
Actually, from what I have read the third country option is the most likely.
A number of nations might be willing to take it on as a contract from the
US (AUS, Spain, etc.). Another idea brought forward was use of third nation
plans and a US yard, either assembling components or building from scratch.
I believe folks sometimes tend to exaggerate the ability of the PRC when
it comes to economic intimidation, especially when it comes down to obtaining
hard US dollars versus a usually lopsided trade ratio with the PRC. France
did sell the Taiwanese those Mirages a couple of years ago, and I hardly
see Australia turning down a deal that could provide real work for an industry
it has been very interested in maintaining.
Brooks
>US? Opposed by USN
>Taiwan? They have never built any sub before.
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
Keith Willshaw
"Brooks" <broo...@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
news:3c7f...@news.newsgroups.com...
>
>
> Actually, from what I have read the third country option is the most
likely.
> A number of nations might be willing to take it on as a contract from the
> US (AUS, Spain, etc.). Another idea brought forward was use of third
nation
> plans and a US yard, either assembling components or building from
scratch.
> I believe folks sometimes tend to exaggerate the ability of the PRC when
> it comes to economic intimidation, especially when it comes down to
obtaining
> hard US dollars versus a usually lopsided trade ratio with the PRC. France
> did sell the Taiwanese those Mirages a couple of years ago, and I hardly
> see Australia turning down a deal that could provide real work for an
industry
> it has been very interested in maintaining.
Given how much of Australia's trade is with China I
very definitely see them turning down such a deal
The Chinese and Hong Kong markets are worth around
AUD 12 billion per annum
As I recall the Ozzies have already made it clear that
no submarine deal with Taiwan will happen.
The best chance is probably for a US company to recruit
foreign specialists and buid them in the USA, of course the
USN is not likely to be happy about that as others have
pointed out.
Keith
hangfire5
Id like to remind you that permit class of submarine was designed some
time around 1958, and Ive had submariners tell me they prefer the
permit to the L.A. class because the L.A. is unnessesarily "techy". A
sub like the Barb with modern systems would be plenty sufficient for
taiwan.
Andrew Toppan
>Id like to remind you that permit class of submarine was designed some
>time around 1958, and Ive had submariners tell me they prefer the
>permit to the L.A. class because the L.A. is unnessesarily "techy".
Sounds like somebody who just doesn't like anything "new".....and since the
PERMITs have been decommissioned for a decade now, it's obviously an old
opinion.
--
Andrew Toppan --- acto...@gwi.net --- "I speak only for myself"
"Haze Gray & Underway" - Naval History, DANFS, World Navies Today,
Photo Features, Military FAQs, and more - http://www.hazegray.org/
Sagaliba
>
> buid them in the USA, of course the
> USN is not likely to be happy about that as others have
> pointed out.
Come to think of it, what happens to the Egypt's two Moray that are
supposed to be built in US due to the requirement of certain percentage
of FMA $ have to be spent in the US?
Sagaliba
US did continue tinker with Albacore till the '70s. A miniaturized hull
design based on LA class is possible too. Putting in modern combat
system should not be a problem, finding a suitable quite (by today's
standard) diesel engine may be.
Derek Lyons
>On 1 Mar 2002 21:15:13 -0800, mix...@hotmail.com (hangfire5) wrote:
>
>>Id like to remind you that permit class of submarine was designed some
>>time around 1958, and Ive had submariners tell me they prefer the
>>permit to the L.A. class because the L.A. is unnessesarily "techy".
>
>Sounds like somebody who just doesn't like anything "new"....
Sounds like, to me, someone who prefers a design that is in several
ways better than an LA. But Andrew would never admit that someone
with actual knowledge, that he does not have, might have a valid
opinion.
D.
------------------------------
Proprietor, Interim Books http://www.interimbooks.com
USS Henry L. Stimson homepage http://www.interimbooks.com/derek/655/
Derek on Books http://www.interimbooks.com/derek/books/
------------------------------
hangfire5
> On 1 Mar 2002 21:15:13 -0800, mix...@hotmail.com (hangfire5) wrote:
>
> >Id like to remind you that permit class of submarine was designed some
> >time around 1958, and Ive had submariners tell me they prefer the
> >permit to the L.A. class because the L.A. is unnessesarily "techy".
>
> Sounds like somebody who just doesn't like anything "new".....and since the
> PERMITs have been decommissioned for a decade now, it's obviously an old
> opinion.
"new" as in seawolf?Im not even going to waste by time with that naval
version of the B-2 stealth bomber.Its just the most
advanced,awsome,undetectable,yadda,yadda,yadda
Andrew Toppan
>Sounds like, to me, someone who prefers a design that is in several
>ways better than an LA.
'In several ways better' is not the same as 'better overall', which was the
claim made.
Jörg Bihlmayr
Sagaliba schrieb:
This shouldn't be a real problem.
But when going conventional, AiP certainly would be a great choice.
Jörg
--
Claudicat ingenium, delirat lingua, labat mens.
- Lukrez, De rerum natura, III, 453
hangfire5
designed in the late 50s early 60s?I mean the current crop of
dutch,swedish,german,italian,diesel subs arent that differnt from the
ones deigned in the early 60s are they?
Andrew Toppan
You really don't have a clue, do you?
Igor Dorrestijn
You mean they're still black and have a screw at the rear? I guess we just
don't have any imagination.
Igor
Jörg Bihlmayr
hangfire5 schrieb:
Nope.
Sagaliba
>
> Sagaliba schrieb:
>
> > US did continue tinker with Albacore till the '70s. A miniaturized hull
> > system should not be a problem, finding a suitable quite (by today's
> > standard) diesel engine may be.
>
> This shouldn't be a real problem.
> But when going conventional, AiP certainly would be a great choice.
I was talking about political problem, if US does not have it, then it
will have to get it from a third country.
AIP would be even more difficult in this regard. Since US is not into
AIP, it will have to go European. So far, countries with AIP technology
are the ones that have made announcements one way or another declining
interest.
Derek Lyons
>On Sat, 02 Mar 2002 18:13:33 GMT, el...@hurricane.net (Derek Lyons) wrote:
>
>>Sounds like, to me, someone who prefers a design that is in several
>>ways better than an LA.
>
>'In several ways better' is not the same as 'better overall', which was the
>claim made.
Try some exercises to increase your reading comprehension Andrew, as
no such claim as 'better overall' was made. Herewith the exact quote:
On 1 Mar 2002 21:15:13 -0800, mix...@hotmail.com (hangfire5) wrote:
>Id like to remind you that permit class of submarine was designed some
>time around 1958, and Ive had submariners tell me they prefer the
>permit to the L.A. class because the L.A. is unnessesarily "techy".
D.
Andrew Toppan
>Try some exercises to increase your reading comprehension Andrew, as
>no such claim as 'better overall' was made. Herewith the exact quote:
And that quote certainly implies the someone thinks the older boats are better
overall, because they are lower-tech. Technology level tends to be a general,
overall characteristic, not associated with one particular system or mission.
Nothing was stated about them being better in certain areas, or certain
situations. If he had claimed they were better (for example) in littoral
waters because they were smaller, that would be a different matter entirely.
hangfire5
the last 40 years.But the actual hull design for this old boats is not
different from anything built now.If you would like to enlighten me on
just one major change to propultion,hull shape,or hull structure,Id
like to hear it.
Andrew Toppan
>.But the actual hull design for this old boats is not
>different from anything built now.If you would like to enlighten me on
>just one major change to propultion,hull shape,or hull structure,Id
>like to hear it.
Have you ever heard of AIP? The ALBCORE hullform? Rather major changes.
Even aside from those, the evolution in technology over the past 40 years
means current propulsion systems are completely unlike those of the past.
Derek Lyons
>On Sun, 03 Mar 2002 19:21:50 GMT, el...@hurricane.net (Derek Lyons) wrote:
>
>>Try some exercises to increase your reading comprehension Andrew, as
>>no such claim as 'better overall' was made. Herewith the exact quote:
>
>And that quote certainly implies the someone thinks the older boats are better
>overall, because they are lower-tech.
Oh? Where? Nowhere in the message does it say 'better overall'.
*Nowhere*. Try a reading comprehension course, really.
>Nothing was stated about them being better in certain areas, or certain
>situations.
Certainly, nor was it stated that they were 'better overall', that
claim exists only in your own imagination.
>If he had claimed they were better (for example) in littoral
>waters because they were smaller, that would be a different matter entirely.
Problem is, as you stated, no actual claims were made, only a
statement of preference. And in your ignorance of the subject matter,
you made an ignorant comment, and now weasel to justify it
Andrew Toppan
>Problem is, as you stated, no actual claims were made, only a
>statement of preference. And in your ignorance of the subject matter,
>you made an ignorant comment, and now weasel to justify it
In my book a "preference" is usually based on the belief that something is
better. Hence, if one prefers a certain thing, one believes it is better.
Your definitions may vary.