The F-CK-1 IDF

Read the forum code of contact

Profile picture for user Fedaykin

Member for

15 years 1 month

Posts: 5,267

Look at the list Wilhelm! Nearly all US supplied and often quite some time back! As per their defence agreement that more recently the US has been reluctant to serve due to Chinese pressure. After that a few odds and sods again a few years back and nothing like a complete submarine design.

It is well established that Taiwan is struggling to buy anything defence related globally! It is very well reported! The odd designer or set of blueprints is not enough to help build a submarine! It is well reported that Taiwan is looking to build the submarines domestically, actually that has been reported for the last decade at least! The barrier has always been ToT along with as you rightly say political in-fighting. Taiwan can't just source the design of something as complex as a submarine! Free movement of individual experience is NOT ENOUGH for a submarine! They need direct OEM help which has not been possible to get.

Again I don't think you know what you are talking about.

Member for

16 years 1 month

Posts: 1,620

Look at the list Wilhelm! Nearly all US supplied and often quite some time back! As per their defence agreement that more recently the US has been reluctant to serve due to Chinese pressure. After that a few odds and sods again a few years back and nothing like a complete submarine design.

It is well established that Taiwan is struggling to buy anything defence related globally! It is very well reported! The odd designer or set of blueprints is not enough to help build a submarine! It is well reported that Taiwan is looking to build the submarines domestically, actually that has been reported for the last decade at least! The barrier has always been ToT along with as you rightly say political in-fighting. Taiwan can't just source the design of something as complex as a submarine! Free movement of individual experience is NOT ENOUGH for a submarine! They need direct OEM help which has not been possible to get.

Again I don't think you know what you are talking about.

Again, high on rhetoric, short on fact or substance.

I've just shown you that there are companies willing to trade with Taiwan in complete weapons systems. Not all are US, as you've glibly skirted over.

The design and technical help behind the scenes are far more easier to sell than complete weapons systems.
Again, there are examples all over the world, of which I've given you one.

The Taiwanese official announcement on local submarine feasibility studies was from 3 weeks back, and is available on the net if you choose to read it.

They've stated they will require assistance from the US in this regard.
Also stated in the article was the previous attempt, that was scuppered by political Taiwanese infighting, not a lack of a foreign design.

The Italians were also willing to sell 4 Nazario Sauro subs to Taiwan in 2003, and another 4 if Taiwan wanted them.
This deal was also scuppered by Taiwanese infighting.

And as has been explained by one analyst on Taiwan:

The Naval Shipbuilding Development Center under Navy Command has been very busy studying the blueprints of the navy’s two Hai Lung-class submarines — Taiwan’s only combat-ready subs — which were acquired from the Netherlands in the late 1980s.

Naval authorities are also reportedly readying to send personnel abroad to study production technology or negotiate technology transfers for building pressure-resistant hulls, which sources say is the most challenging aspect in building submarines.

So once again, you are flying in the face of evidence.

It is you that doesn't seem to know what you are talking about.

Why repeat a dogmatic mantra when the evidence suggests otherwise?

Profile picture for user Fedaykin

Member for

15 years 1 month

Posts: 5,267

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.

Member for

16 years 1 month

Posts: 1,620

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?

Profile picture for user swerve

Member for

15 years 7 months

Posts: 13,432

: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 8x8 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.
IMHO, of course.


Timoney CM-32. Under the radar. Smallish Irish firm with low profile, product that the Chinese don't care about much.
AT-4 - under the radar, again. Not a class of weapon China cares about, & obtainable from US stocks.
APILAS - ditto.
And the same for quite a few others. Also note the difference between US weapons (the USA is not afraid to sell, but restricts what it allows Taiwan) & others, old contracts from before China became rich enough to throw its weight around successfully & new sales, & various classes of weapons. China isn't very interested in Taiwan implementing upgrades to existing systems, the transfer of old platforms & systems to replace even older (e.g. Osprey-class), & civilian technology adapted for military purposes in Taiwan.

China does not object to Taiwan being armed. After all, it's seen as Chinese territory, which should be defended against external threats. What China does object to, & tries (with considerable success) to block, is Taiwan having weapons which could threaten Chinese control of the air & sea around Taiwan. Nowadays nobody except the USA will now sell Taiwan anything that isn't for purely local defence, or is otherwise non-threatening to China. Super Puma falls into this category, for example, as does APILAS. Listing all these deals does not support your argument.

The USA is still selling fairly high-end weapons, but only to keep Taiwan's armed forces more or less credible for local defence. The various F-16 purchase & upgrade deals have fallen foul of US delays, not just local ambivalence. Nobody else will sell combat aircraft or weapons for them now. Taiwan's problems in even getting support for its Mirage 2000s have already been mentioned.

Then we come to submarines. China objects strongly to Taiwan buying new subs, or even more old ones. IIRC it tried & failed to buy (for upgrade) the two Zwaardvis subs the Netherlands retired in the 1990s, & which were laid up awaiting a buyer for some years. China managed to block it. Germany, France, Italy, Spain & Sweden all refuse to supply boats or assistance. Who else is there, who doesn't build licenced designs from one of these? Russia or Japan - neither of which is a possible supplier - and the USA, which can build hulls & combat systems, but has no relevant experience with non-nuclear boats.

Of course, individuals could travel to Taiwan, with what's in their heads, but there are strong reasons not to. China will find out, & apply pressure. They might find themselves subject to proceedings against them from former employers (under Chinese pressure), demanding that they show that no work they did for Taiwan used proprietary knowledge gained from their previous employment.

Such a job would have to be an individuals final employment, & pay enough for a comfortable retirement. No chance of subsequent employment. There'd be the worry of possible retaliation, either lawsuits or even physically. The pay had better be damned good!

And to add to all that - could individuals do enough? You'd need a variety of skills & knowledge, much of it very specialised.

Taiwan could probably build low-end subs without help, but what's the point? It wants modern subs, better than what the PLAN has.

BTW, don't forget that some of the political in-fighting in Taiwan will be part of the Chinese effort to limit Taiwan's armed strength. Many KMT politicians are very close to China these days, & have (or are close to people who have) substantial business interests on the mainland. China is able to apply a lot of pressure inside Taiwan.

Profile picture for user Fedaykin

Member for

15 years 1 month

Posts: 5,267

Get off your high horse.

You have found to be wrong, I took the time actually cite what I was saying with a link and have further pointed out this is well reported, you are the one thinking that a few designers are enough to help build a submarine, we are not talking about the last decade (actually something I agreed with) we are talking about NOW! You clearly haven't a clue how difficult it is to design and build a submarine thinking that free flow of some expertise in is enough. Blueprints are not available now, this is well reported and I even kindly cited with a link as you were being snotty about it. That link clearly states that Taiwan isn't getting help anymore.

You haven proven anything except your lack of knowledge around Submarine development and construction plus an inablitity to use Google.

I haven't moved any goalposts just pointing out things that are well known, it is you who has moved the goalposts talking about political infighting. Something I agree with so I don't see why you arguing that point.

I am sorry if you are offended by me pointing out where you are lacking in knowledge, such is life on the internets. Accusing me of dogmatic mantras is going to get a belligerent response so I think we are even.

As for getting the last word in:

Pot

Kettle

Black

You are also stating opinion as fact and I have at least tried to support what I am saying.

To answer your questions:

1. Yes. But we are talking about now!
2. Yes. But we are talking about now!
3. No. But individuals are not enough OEM support is needed in Submarine development!
4. No. But individuals are not enough OEM support is needed in Submarine development!
5. No. But individuals are not enough OEM support is needed in Submarine development!
6. No. But individuals are not enough OEM support is needed in Submarine development!

See a theme here...

Get the last word I honestly don't care

Member for

16 years 1 month

Posts: 1,620

So now that it has been firmly established that Taiwan does in fact have access to some companies across the world willing to provide certain weapons systems, let alone blueprints and technical assistance, and that even China can't tell John Smith from Surrey, Heinrich Kruger from Munich, Serge Dubois from Paris, Bill Lane from Seattle, nor Enzo de Luca from Rome where they may or may not work or practice, and to prevent deceit, ego, and dogmatic stubborness from ruining a perfectly good thread, back to the Ching Kuo.

It is a fairly obvious fact, due to the points raised and the history behind Taiwan, that they should be looking at an indigineous combat jet.

I guess the real issue is whether they go the Gripen NG route with the Ching Kuo or go with a new design.

I personally think a developed Ching Kuo should be the way to go, ala the Gripen NG.
There was some work done on this, with more powerful engines, airframe modifications, and new avionics.

Initially, this would be a step in the right direction, with the engine being the most difficult.

In 1988, ITEC decided to invest in the 12,000 lbf (53 kN) thrust TFE1088-12, which was re-designated as the TFE1042-70A for political reason as well. Preliminary studies had shown that the IDF could supercruise with the new engine. However, after the IDF order was cut in half due to budget concerns, the TFE1088-12 engine upgrade plan ended as well.

One would think this would be the solution, as was initially envisaged.

After a limited run of a Ching Kuo Mk2, with the view to replacing or augmenting the fleet of Mirage 2000, F-5, and Ching Kuo's, the future would be to build on this with a new design, something that should have happened initially in the Ching Kuo project.

Profile picture for user Fedaykin

Member for

15 years 1 month

Posts: 5,267

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

Member for

16 years 1 month

Posts: 1,620

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.

Member for

16 years 1 month

Posts: 1,620

Does anyone know what the work done to the TFE1088-12 or TFE1042-70A was to increase its thrust?
Was it a physically bigger engine, or just tweaked/reworked?
From the description below, it sounds like a more-or-less straight replacement for the vanilla TFE1042.

In 1988, ITEC decided to invest in the 12,000 lbf (53 kN) thrust TFE1088-12, which was re-designated as the TFE1042-70A for political reason as well. Preliminary studies had shown that the IDF could supercruise with the new engine. However, after the IDF order was cut in half due to budget concerns, the TFE1088-12 engine upgrade plan ended as well.

Then, one wonders if a single bigger engine might not be the way forward for a developed Ching Kuo?
I guess the original developed TFE1042-70 with the greater thrust would make less waves, economically and politically.

Profile picture for user Fedaykin

Member for

15 years 1 month

Posts: 5,267

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

Member for

16 years 1 month

Posts: 1,620


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.

Profile picture for user Fedaykin

Member for

15 years 1 month

Posts: 5,267

Nope, you started down the rabbit hole. Lets compare:

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

vs

Now that you've finished dribbling on your shirt front in public for all the world to see, care to re-read the thread?

I think what I said was rather tame and purely after you started to argue the toss over recent defence procurement issues for Taiwan, you are the one who ended up with that highly insulting post about me dribbling down my shirt. You are the one screaming for cited evidence accusing me of posting opinion rather then fact when you haven't cited one thing and have only posted opinion. You say I have lost all control yet you think that post is all fine and no problem. I am perfectly calm and slightly bemused over your reaction. If I am a laughing stock in your opinion that is no skin off my nose, I think you are a bit of a child looking at your reaction.

Swerve completely took your argument to pieces in post #26, I see you are not ranting at him. In my opinion I don't think you are up to speed on the subject, I see you find that view insulting but your reaction is wholly out of proportion. If you are going to keep on raging at me for what was frankly a mild dig then I will carry on as you clearly don't know when to calm down and I think it is amusing to watch you go completely to pieces.

The thread is indeed here in all its glory for others to read.

You are then one who has posted the gravest insult.

You are the one who has posted opinion without any cited evidence.

I have happily agreed with some of your points , I haven't lost any argument because I am not in one. Just replying to someone who has got on their high horse when someone dared contradict his opinion.

Again grow up

Member for

16 years 1 month

Posts: 1,620

I think what I said was rather tame .....

I think you are a bit of a child looking at your reaction...
... a mild dig...

...childish..

You are then one who has posted the gravest insult....

Again grow up

"You're it!"

"No! You're it!"

Sweet Lord.

I can't believe I'm seeing replies like this on an adult based website...

It beggars belief.

Why did you resort to that silly little insult after I politely mentioned the fact that the US hasn't built a diesel sub since the 1950's?
It's dragged the entire thread down, along with your baffling replies.
I've tried hard to get it back on topic to the Ching Kuo a couple of times.
You've mentioned this plane that the thread is about exactly once in all your petulant pouting.

Mods, can you please clean the thread up so that other posters don't suffer from having to read through this twisting in the wind drivel please?

Profile picture for user Fedaykin

Member for

15 years 1 month

Posts: 5,267

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

It is petulant true, but I see that you won't actually take on any serious criticism of your points. You haven't cited anything only raged away when you didn't have a choir of people agreeing with you. You haven't posted a single cited link to any article stating that a submarine manufacturer now is prepared to sell the knowledge or vessels. You haven't posted a single cited link that shows that there are still significant international defence sales to Taiwan. I suggest you read Swerves post as he far better makes the point then me.

To be fair at least your last post wasn't entirely raging insult fest. Don't like it there is always an ignore button

Now Ching Kuo

Profile picture for user Fedaykin

Member for

15 years 1 month

Posts: 5,267

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

It is petulant true, but I see that you won't actually take on any serious criticism of your points. You haven't cited anything only raged away when you didn't have a choir of people agreeing with you. You haven't posted a single cited link to any article stating that a submarine manufacturer now is prepared to sell the knowledge or vessels. You haven't posted a single cited link that shows that there are still significant international defence sales to Taiwan. I suggest you read Swerves post as he far better makes the point then me.

To be fair at least your last post wasn't entirely raging insult fest. Don't like it there is always an ignore button

Now Ching Kuo

Profile picture for user Y-20 Bacon

Member for

7 years 8 months

Posts: 2,040

when Taiwan unites with PRC, i wonder what China will do with all the Ching-kuos.
would they keep them? use them to replace j-7s?
would they rename it to Mao?

Member for

16 years 1 month

Posts: 1,620

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...

Profile picture for user Fedaykin

Member for

15 years 1 month

Posts: 5,267

No and by your admission neither are you.

Doesn't change my point or the fact that nobody is prepared to help or sell Submarine technology to Taiwan or anything else for that matter.

I agree that the way forward is indigenous and all that lovely information you have posted confirms that. But the US DOD thinks they are not up to it and will need help.

What you have posted was interesting and constructive, now I must admit that calling you lacking in knowledge was a bit sharp and maybe a bit unfair but you calling me effectively a drooling idiot was certainly going to get a sharp reply. That you rage at me about un-cited opinion when YOU haven't even bothered to provide one cited link and ONLY provided opinion was going to get short shrift.

Lets leave it at that.

The internet is a tough place, learn to live with it.

Member for

8 years 7 months

Posts: 480

when Taiwan unites with PRC, i wonder what China will do with all the Ching-kuos.
would they keep them? use them to replace j-7s?
would they rename it to Mao?

Why would PLAAF keep them when they already have J-10B which are a generation more advanced? They would be scrapped IMO.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]216652[/ATTACH]

Attachments