China’s missile deployments against Taiwan are the single most dangerous threat to the nation’s sovereignty, yet some insist that Taiwan either doesn’t need the Patriot Advanced Capability (PAC-3) missile defense system or that the US is trying to cheat Taiwanese taxpayers with hidden PAC-3 price tags — or both. Both charges are false and the latter borders on insulting.
The fact is both Taiwan and the US have a vital interest in seeing that PAC-3 ballistic missile defense systems are deployed in Taiwan and neither can afford to allow political grandstanding to unhinge the historic bilateral security relationship. Both Washington and Taipei should approach the ongoing PAC-3 pricing consultations in a spirit of cooperation, maturity and a sense of common vulnerability to China’s ever-expanding missile threat.
There is much misinformation and disinformation about the PAC-3 sale. Two Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators, Shuai Hua-min (帥化民), a former army general, and Lin Yu-fang (林郁方), said the US government has suddenly added US$800 million in hidden “research and development costs” to the PAC-3’s US$3.1 billion price tag. Both legislators are familiar with defense procurements, and both must be aware that “nonrecurring engineering” (NRE) costs are a fact of life in every order for advanced US weapons systems. But the US$800 million fee quoted by the legislators seems very high and I suspect it is exaggerated.
Still, NRE fees are a line-item consideration in all new weapons systems that the US offers for export — and the PAC-3 system is one of the newest systems that the US shares with friendly and allied countries. Kuwait purchased the same missiles last year (80 missiles and launch systems), as have the Netherlands and Japan. The United Arab Emirates has a deal almost the same size as Taiwan’s. They all face NRE costs in one form or another (some in cash, some in kind) and they can be negotiated. In fact, Taiwan’s unit price for the actual PAC-3 missiles — about US$3 million — is considerably less than the US$4 million unit price that Japan paid in 2004. Taiwanese legislators should know that including NRE costs on major foreign military sales is nothing new.
Behind the NRE fee is the fact that the Pentagon must try to normalize “asynchronous” order streams as new orders for advanced weapons come from the US’ friends and allies around the world. By “asynchronous” I mean that as each order for a particular new weapons system reaches the Pentagon, the system itself is at a new and distinct stage of maturity. Therefore, the associated quantities, delivery schedules and latest upgrades must be factored into each separate incoming order after the customer gets the initial pricing data. NRE costs can include special ordering of long-lead items, tooling, line expansion or anything else that is required to accommodate increased production lots beyond the orders from the Pentagon.
In the case of the PAC-3 system, NRE costs can also be associated with the radar sets, tactical command stations, information and coordination centrals, communication replay groups, engagement control stations, the launch tubes and carriers and a series of other subsystems that are custom-made for each PAC-3 contract. As such, each new PAC-3 missile defense order from each new country is treated as a standalone case and each country has NRE costs associated with its individual order. In practice, once all of the individual sales cases are “normalized” there is a reconciliation of NRE charges.
It is also possible that, if the Pentagon determines that the PAC-3 sale is in the interests of the US’ national security, it could waive NRE recoupment under authority granted by Congress several years ago.
I strongly urge both US and Taiwanese defense specialists to take this seriously. After all, a robust Taiwanese missile defense capability is not just in Taiwan’s interests, but is also in the most vital national security interests of the US.
A few weeks ago, the US Secretary of State’s International Security Advisory Board warned of the “emerging creep toward a Chinese assured [nuclear weapons] destruction capability” against the US and that the US “will need to pursue new missile defense capabilities” to counter the threat. Earlier this month, the chief of the US Missile Defense Agency, General Henry Obering, said that his agency had not fielded “missile defense components to counter a Chinese threat,” but that “we are certainly cognizant of what the Chinese are doing in their missile development program.”
I have long pointed out that Taiwan’s unique geographic location (and its high mountains) offers great potential for US-Taiwan missile defense cooperation. An integral part of Taiwan’s PAC-3 missile defense system is the large phased-array missile defense radar (sometimes called “PAVE PAWS”) that Taiwan purchased last year (now under construction). It has the potential to be integrated into a global missile defense architecture shared by Asia’s democracies. The PAVE PAWS phased array radar can see 3,000km into China and give Taiwan, as well as Taiwan’s friends (the US, Japan and India among others), six full minutes of additional ballistic missile early warning. The intelligence from its radar telemetry can also support joint efforts to develop countermeasures against new Chinese ballistic missile and cruise missile threats. This alone should warm the Pentagon’s collective heart to the idea of mitigating a PAC-3 NRE price tag for Taiwan.
The US has thus far only approved 330 PAC-3 missiles for Taiwan. That must be seen as just the initial order given Taiwan’s requirement for more than 1,000 — a number that must be commensurate with the Chinese deployments. Current pricing indicates that the unit price of a PAC-3 is declining to an amount closer to the unit costs of China’s offensive missiles.
Frankly speaking, there are policymakers in both Washington and Taipei who are loath to see Taiwan’s continued reliance on the US and other Asian friends for security and who would prefer to have Taiwan’s security become Beijing’s responsibility. They will argue that any further sales or transfers of US weapons to Taiwan antagonizes Beijing and inhibits the rapidly unfolding process of economic, social and political integration of Taiwan into China.
Of course, in Washington, that would mean abandoning the Taiwan Relations Act, which states “it is the policy of the United States ... to maintain the capacity of the United States to resist any resort to force or other forms of coercion that would jeopardize the security, or the social or economic system, of the people on Taiwan.”
China, in the meantime, sees its swelling ballistic and cruise missile forces as essential tools of coercion against Taiwan. Chinese leaders are determined to expand those forces despite the plaintive efforts of President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) to persuade China to reduce — or even to slow the growth of — the number of missiles targeting Taiwan. Taiwan’s lack of missile defense makes it essentially defenseless and leaves Taiwanese leaders with little capacity to resist Chinese threats.
In the grand scheme of things, the more than 1,300 missiles deployed across the Taiwan Strait are a small part of Beijing’s overall economic as well as military ability to force or coerce Taiwanese into unwilling decisions about their relationship with China. But virtually all other tools of Chinese coercion can be resisted for some time or involve protracted costs for Beijing. Offensive missile attacks on Taiwan are virtually cost-free (except for the sunk costs of the missiles themselves) and can harm Taiwan in a matter of days. Taiwan, the US and the rest of Asia’s democracies have a vital interest in building defenses against that threat.
Unless, of course, Americans, Taiwanese and other Asians are content with the idea of having China in charge.
John Tkacik is a senior research fellow in Asian studies at the Heritage Foundation.
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has long been expansionist and contemptuous of international law. Under Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平), the CCP regime has become more despotic, coercive and punitive. As part of its strategy to annex Taiwan, Beijing has sought to erase the island democracy’s international identity by bribing countries to sever diplomatic ties with Taipei. One by one, China has peeled away Taiwan’s remaining diplomatic partners, leaving just 12 countries (mostly small developing states) and the Vatican recognizing Taiwan as a sovereign nation. Taiwan’s formal international space has shrunk dramatically. Yet even as Beijing has scored diplomatic successes, its overreach
For Taiwan, the ongoing US and Israeli strikes on Iranian targets are a warning signal: When a major power stretches the boundaries of self-defense, smaller states feel the tremors first. Taiwan’s security rests on two pillars: US deterrence and the credibility of international law. The first deters coercion from China. The second legitimizes Taiwan’s place in the international community. One is material. The other is moral. Both are indispensable. Under the UN Charter, force is lawful only in response to an armed attack or with UN Security Council authorization. Even pre-emptive self-defense — long debated — requires a demonstrably imminent
Since being re-elected, US President Donald Trump has consistently taken concrete action to counter China and to safeguard the interests of the US and other democratic nations. The attacks on Iran, the earlier capture of deposed of Venezuelan president Nicolas Maduro and efforts to remove Chinese influence from the Panama Canal all demonstrate that, as tensions with Beijing intensify, Washington has adopted a hardline stance aimed at weakening its power. Iran and Venezuela are important allies and major oil suppliers of China, and the US has effectively decapitated both. The US has continuously strengthened its military presence in the Philippines. Japanese Prime
After “Operation Absolute Resolve” to capture former Venezuelan president Nicolas Maduro, the US joined Israel on Saturday last week in launching “Operation Epic Fury” to remove Iranian supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and his theocratic regime leadership team. The two blitzes are widely believed to be a prelude to US President Donald Trump changing the geopolitical landscape in the Indo-Pacific region, targeting China’s rise. In the National Security Strategic report released in December last year, the Trump administration made it clear that the US would focus on “restoring American pre-eminence in the Western hemisphere,” and “competing with China economically and militarily
RSS