The US House of Representatives Committee on Appropriations on Tuesday last week released a defense funding bill that would secure US$915 million more to plug a shortfall in the US Navy’s budget, allowing for the purchase of two Arleigh Burke-class Aegis guided missile destroyers during fiscal year 2022.
If the bill is approved, the US Department of Defense would avoid the embarrassment of needing to pay damages to two naval shipyards — Ingalls Shipbuilding and Bath Iron Works — as both are contracted to build the ships.
The bill also proposes canceling the budget for one Navajo-class salvage-and-rescue ship, and proposes the purchase of four more C/KC/MC-130J multimission special operations/tanker aircraft, which had not been included in the budget.
While this news might appear unrelated to Taiwan, it is deeply relevant to the nation.
The nation’s new type of disaster-relief support ship, known only as the Anhai (安海), is one of 12 vessels under development as part of the government’s fast-tracked indigenous shipbuilding program.
In December last year, CSBC Corp, Taiwan was awarded a NT$2.9 billion (US$103.3 million at the current exchange rate) tender to build the disaster-relief support ships, with the first of five scheduled for delivery by the end of 2023.
In terms of numbers and overall progress, the project is not on track for a 2023 handover, nor is it keeping pace with the indigenous defense submarine program. The lack of rescue-and-salvage capability to dovetail with the submarines’ scheduled launch would put Taiwan’s submariners in significant danger.
Returning to the US Congress’ budget plans, the Navajo-class rescue ship is the most advanced vessel of its type. The keel for the first of seven planned ships in the T-ATS-6 class was first laid in October 2019.
The government should consider offering to take on the purchase. This would allow the US Department of Defense to avoid paying damages to Bollinger Shipyards for breach of contract, while Taiwan would receive a first-rate ship in active service with the US Navy.
It would also provide Taiwanese sailors with the opportunity to study naval rescue-and-salvage operations from their US Navy counterparts. This knowledge would help Taiwan to accelerate the production and commissioning of its locally made vessels.
As rescue-and-salvage ships are not combat platforms, but provide humanitarian assistance to stricken vessels, Western nations rarely refuse to grant an export license for this type of technology, as long as the purchasing nation is willing to pay the licensing and intellectual property fees.
Proficiency in submarine rescue requires at least three years of training: In 2015, Russia adopted the deep-water Submarine Rescue Diving Recompression System used by NATO members for its navy, and it took until 2018 to achieve full operational capability.
That a naval power as large as Russia required three years to perfect the system demonstrates the complexity of submarine rescue.
If the government cannot accelerate the commission of its next-generation rescue and salvage ships to correspond with the launch of the first locally made submarine, the safety of submariners will be a legitimate concern.
From a strategic perspective, possessing a state-of-the-art, but non-sensitive US capability would give other ships in active service a huge boost in terms of quality and technology.
Chang Feng-lin is a university administrator and writes for the International Air Transport Association.
Translated by Edward Jones
On Sept. 3 in Tiananmen Square, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) rolled out a parade of new weapons in PLA service that threaten Taiwan — some of that Taiwan is addressing with added and new military investments and some of which it cannot, having to rely on the initiative of allies like the United States. The CCP’s goal of replacing US leadership on the global stage was advanced by the military parade, but also by China hosting in Tianjin an August 31-Sept. 1 summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which since 2001 has specialized
In an article published by the Harvard Kennedy School, renowned historian of modern China Rana Mitter used a structured question-and-answer format to deepen the understanding of the relationship between Taiwan and China. Mitter highlights the differences between the repressive and authoritarian People’s Republic of China and the vibrant democracy that exists in Taiwan, saying that Taiwan and China “have had an interconnected relationship that has been both close and contentious at times.” However, his description of the history — before and after 1945 — contains significant flaws. First, he writes that “Taiwan was always broadly regarded by the imperial dynasties of
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will stop at nothing to weaken Taiwan’s sovereignty, going as far as to create complete falsehoods. That the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never ruled Taiwan is an objective fact. To refute this, Beijing has tried to assert “jurisdiction” over Taiwan, pointing to its military exercises around the nation as “proof.” That is an outright lie: If the PRC had jurisdiction over Taiwan, it could simply have issued decrees. Instead, it needs to perform a show of force around the nation to demonstrate its fantasy. Its actions prove the exact opposite of its assertions. A
A large part of the discourse about Taiwan as a sovereign, independent nation has centered on conventions of international law and international agreements between outside powers — such as between the US, UK, Russia, the Republic of China (ROC) and Japan at the end of World War II, and between the US and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since recognition of the PRC as the sole representative of China at the UN. Internationally, the narrative on the PRC and Taiwan has changed considerably since the days of the first term of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) of the Democratic
RSS