Regardless of why the US government has been prevaricating on the sale of 66 F-16 fighter aircraft to Taiwan, it is increasingly apparent that the road ahead for weapons procurement from the US is going to be bumpy.
As China's military threat is not becoming any less severe, Taipei must find a way to pull itself out from this quandary. The solution is fairly simple -- shop elsewhere. Luckily, there is no shortage of companies and states eager to sell weaponry to countries in need.
When it comes to advanced fighter aircraft, two alternatives to the F-16 come to mind: Dassault's Rafale Multi-Role Combat Fighter and the Euro-fighter Typhoon. Both aircraft could meet Taiwan's defense needs, from air superiority to close air support. While both aircraft were initially developed for Europeans, their manufacturers have actively sought clients elsewhere.
So far, India, Libya and Switzerland have shown interest in acquiring the Rafale, which in recent years has lost out on South Korean and Moroccan bids to US-made F-15Ks and F-16s respectively. As for the Typhoon, Saudi Arabia has confirmed it will purchase 72 aircraft for ?4.43 billion (US$9.03 billion) and Japan has expressed an interest in making it its next-generation fighter aircraft, as have India and Pakistan.
But the acquisition of new aircraft involves more than just platforms. Cost, performance and interoperability must all be considered.
In terms of cost, the price tag per Rafale is approximately 47 million euros (US$66.5 million), the Typhoon is US$125.6 million, while the F-16C/D is US$45.5 million. In that respect, the F-16 has a clear advantage over its competitors.
But when it comes to performance, the latter is falling behind technologically, something that even US Air Force Lieutenant General Bruce Wright, the commander of US forces in Japan, admitted last month (Taiwan did seek the more advanced F-35, but the request was turned down by Washington).
Last is interoperability, the curveball often thrown by the US defense industry to defeat its competitors in the weapons market. With obvious exceptions, any country today that purchases weapons will seek to obtain platforms that can be seamlessly integrated with US capabilities -- something Taiwan would certainly desire in the advent of military confrontation in the Taiwan Strait.
Aware of this requirement, non-US defense contractors have ensured that their models are fully capable of operating alongside US weaponry. In other words, they are all NATO-compatible, as the successful use of the Rafale in the US-led mission in Afghanistan has shown. As such, if Taiwan were to purchase the Rafales or Typhoons rather than F-16s, interoperability with existing systems and with US systems in the region should not be a problem.
There would be other advantages to widening the list of potential defense contractors. For one, increased competition means that prices would likely go down. It would also diminish Taiwan's unhealthy reliance on the US to meet its defense needs, which puts it at risk when, as now, politics have a detrimental impact on defense acquisitions.
Lastly -- and perhaps most importantly -- the more countries that vie for Taiwanese defense money, the more complaints Beijing will have to make about the "unacceptable" sale of weapons to Taiwan. So far, it has only had to deliver complaints to the US.
In other words, by shopping around, Taiwan would prompt Beijing to make more belligerent demands with more countries -- perhaps alienating them in the process -- which could prove politically beneficial.
A few weeks ago in Kaohsiung, tech mogul turned political pundit Robert Tsao (曹興誠) joined Western Washington University professor Chen Shih-fen (陳時奮) for a public forum in support of Taiwan’s recall campaign. Kaohsiung, already the most Taiwanese independence-minded city in Taiwan, was not in need of a recall. So Chen took a different approach: He made the case that unification with China would be too expensive to work. The argument was unusual. Most of the time, we hear that Taiwan should remain free out of respect for democracy and self-determination, but cost? That is not part of the usual script, and
Behind the gloating, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) must be letting out a big sigh of relief. Its powerful party machine saved the day, but it took that much effort just to survive a challenge mounted by a humble group of active citizens, and in areas where the KMT is historically strong. On the other hand, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) must now realize how toxic a brand it has become to many voters. The campaigners’ amateurism is what made them feel valid and authentic, but when the DPP belatedly inserted itself into the campaign, it did more harm than good. The
For nearly eight decades, Taiwan has provided a home for, and shielded and nurtured, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). After losing the Chinese Civil War in 1949, the KMT fled to Taiwan, bringing with it hundreds of thousands of soldiers, along with people who would go on to become public servants and educators. The party settled and prospered in Taiwan, and it developed and governed the nation. Taiwan gave the party a second chance. It was Taiwanese who rebuilt order from the ruins of war, through their own sweat and tears. It was Taiwanese who joined forces with democratic activists
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) held a news conference to celebrate his party’s success in surviving Saturday’s mass recall vote, shortly after the final results were confirmed. While the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) would have much preferred a different result, it was not a defeat for the DPP in the same sense that it was a victory for the KMT: Only KMT legislators were facing recalls. That alone should have given Chu cause to reflect, acknowledge any fault, or perhaps even consider apologizing to his party and the nation. However, based on his speech, Chu showed
RSS