DefenseNews: Come Clean on Subs

Here's an interesting take on the submarine issue that was posted to Taiwan Focus. Unfortunately I can't find the URL of the original article from Defense News...don't miss the UPDATE at the bottom.

++++++++++

13 February 2006 Monday
Defense News
Vago Muradian, Editor

U.S.-TAIWAN RELATIONS

Come Clean On Subs

Alliances, like friendships, flourish only if both partners remain honest with each other. And when it comes to the U.S.-Taiwan alliance, it's high time that Washington came clean with Taipei.

The United States has no intention of making good on President George W. Bush's 2001 promise to sell eight advanced diesel submarines to the self-governing island, because Washington does not believe its ally can be trusted to keep American submarine technologies from the People's Republic of China. Instead of forcing the Taiwanese to run an obstacle course without a finish line, U.S. officials should just call the whole thing off.

U.S. concerns were reinforced by the stunning news Feb. 9 that U.S. prosecutors had indicted two men, one Taiwanese, the other French, for trying to sneak controlled U.S. weapons technologies into mainland China. Chosen "Bill" Moo, a Taiwanese consultant who helped sell U.S. arms to Taipei, is accused of conspiring to illegally export F-16 fighter engines, AH-64 Apache helicopter engines and cruise missile components.

Taiwan has long bought U.S. weapons. It owns F-16 fighters, attack helicopters, missiles, Aegis warships and other systems readily exported by Washington. But submarine technology does not fall into that category, though Taiwanese officials are growing desperate to update their decrepit fleet to face an increasingly bellicose and well-armed China.

Taiwan's drive for submarines started in 1969 with a 12-boat plan to defend against Chinese invasion. The U.S. rejected its initial request to lease four boats, but four years later agreed to sell two World War II subs. The Netherlands sold the island nation two, more advanced subs a decade later, but European nations, eager for a piece of China's massive economy, have since declined to take Taipei's money. Nor will Russia, which supplies subs to China, sell to Taiwan.

That leaves only the United States - and there are several reasons Taiwan will never sail another U.S. sub. First, the U.S. hasn't built diesel subs since 1959, when the Navy decided to go all-nuclear. Second, U.S. submarine officers privately fear that if an American shipyard did begin building conventionally powered boats, the production of more-capable nuclear boats would come to a halt once Congress saw a diesel sub's cheaper price tag.

So the U.S. Navy is taking pains to ensure that any proposed deal that might fulfill Bush's 8-sub promise will be unaffordable or unacceptable to Taipei.

Details are sketchy - not only to Taiwan, but U.S. industry executives as well - but this much is known: under the deal being crafted, eight subs could cost $12 billion and would be built without any Taiwanese industrial role. And yet U.S. officials are demanding the Taiwanese legislature commit to the program with upfront funding.

Taiwanese leaders have done their homework, and they aren't stupid. They know that eight top-of-the-line European subs would go for about $5 billion, and it's dawned on some in Taipei this isn't about money.

Worse, Taiwan's reluctance to underwrite this opaque shell game is being portrayed by some U.S. officials as evidence of Taipei's unwillingness to adequately defend itself. That's a hollow charge; Taiwan spends at least $8 billion on defense annually.

It's an example of the bully blaming the bullied for their plight, and it's a shameful way to treat an old ally.

And it sends a disturbing message as the United States tries to recruit new allies to fight its "long war" against terrorism and shape the course of "crossroads" states like China.

++++++++

It's good to see that someone understands how unfair US accusations are -- the second paragraph tells it all:

Taiwanese leaders have done their homework, and they aren't stupid. They know that eight top-of-the-line European subs would go for about $5 billion, and it's dawned on some in Taipei this isn't about money.

Worse, Taiwan's reluctance to underwrite this opaque shell game is being portrayed by some U.S. officials as evidence of Taipei's unwillingness to adequately defend itself. That's a hollow charge; Taiwan spends at least $8 billion on defense annually.

UPDATE: This was just posted to Taiwan Focus

Taiwan claims US Navy is sabotaging SSK plans>

By Wendell Minnick JDW Correspondents
Taipei

Taiwan (Republic of China) has accused the US Navy of intentionally sabotaging the sale of eight diesel-electric submarines that the Bush administration promised it in April 2001.

A US source close to the programme has confirmed Taiwanese claims and argues that the US Navy feared a revival of a domestic diesel-electric submarine programme that would challenge its traditional use of nuclear-powered submarines.

"The bottom line is that the initiation of a Taiwan submarine programme has tremendous implications for the US Navy - once it gets going, they will not be able to resist the already existing pressure to integrate diesels with AIP [air-independent propulsion] into the navy inventory for littoral warfare. So they have been artful in making it seem like they have supported the president's policy; yet purposely making it such a bitter pill to swallow - what I call 'death by bureaucracy'," stated the source.

Minnick writes quite a bit on Taiwan affairs and is very well-informed. I need to see this whole article! Here is the article on the last diesel submarines built by the US, the barbel class, from Wiki. The last diesel subs built in the US were built in the 1950s.

UPDATE: A couple of trenchant excerpts from the full text of the above article at Jane's:

Accusations first surfaced in 2002 when RoC government officials expressed concerns directly to the US Office of the Secretary of Defence that the US Navy was intentionally subverting the programme by intentionally inflating the price to the point that it would be impossible for Taiwan's legislature to approve. The US Navy's Independent Cost Estimate (ICE) was massive at USD9.4 billion to USD11.7 billion. Submarine construction alone was estimated to cost USD5.3 billion for eight platforms.

To complicate matters, the US government insisted that Taiwan fund the programme for the entire amount before proceeding with the initial stages of the programme. However, without details on design and definition, Taiwan legislators across party lines rejected this demand, citing the exorbitant costs as compared with other diesel electric submarine projects around the world.

One Taiwan naval official complained to JDW: "Would you buy a car without knowing what it looked like? Show me where it says that we have to have full commitment of funds first? What regulation? Would the US Congress appropriate USD10 billion when it didn't know what it was getting?"

US sources said: "The US Navy's next strategy is to redo the ICE - another six month to a year process. They will keep stretching it out until the next administration, or until Taiwan gives up and gives the programme the thumbs down after internal resource debates are resolved."

One US Navy official bragged to JDW: "Bush will only be around for a few more years - the US Navy has been [around] for a couple of hundred years and will be around for a couple of hundred more. We can wait him out. "What makes this all so insane is that there is no question that the US Navy intentionally undermined this programme from the beginning and has been able to keep the ball in Taiwan's court by continually jacking up the price, and making it as bureaucratically difficult as one can imagine. The possibility of a US shipyard building diesel-electric submarines scares the 'b'Jesus' out of a significant portion of the US Navy. Putting a diesel electric submarine programme in the hands of the US Navy is like putting an alcoholic in a brewery - the outcome won't be good," the US source said.

[Taiwan] [US] [submarines] [US Foreign Policy]