Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) vice presidential candidate Jaw Shaw-kong (趙少康) has been maliciously distorting the facts about a major arms purchase for political reasons, utterly disregarding the safety and security of naval officers and sailors.
He has repeatedly misrepresented the cost of the domestically built Hai Kun (海鯤號) submarine, including factory buildings, machinery, design and other costs, claiming they total NT$52.36 billion (US$1.7 billion), instead of the real construction cost of NT$26.13 billion, which is about NT$8.71 million per tonne.
Jaw is comparing a made-in-Taiwan submarine with a Type 209 submarine purchased from abroad, as if he were unaware that Type 209s, which Germany authorized South Korea to build, are low-cost, no-frills subs with a displacement of little more than 1,000 tonnes.
In addition to South Korea, Germany has authorized shipyards in Turkey and India to build the submarines. Since the 1970s, the manufacturer has won orders from 14 countries, such as Argentina and Brazil, for a total of 62 submarines. Because of the Type 209’s small displacement and its huge economy of scale, each one costs NT$11.11 billion, or NT$9.697 million per tonne.
For countries such as Indonesia and South Korea, they can buy predesigned subs, but Taiwan has had to develop its submarine-building capacity from scratch, so their starting points are different.
Indonesia’s German-built KRI Nanggala Type 209 submarine sank in waters north of Bali in 2021 with all 53 crew members lost. Argentina’s ARA San Juan sank east of Argentina in 2017, also with the loss of everyone on board. There have been so many technical problems with Type 209s that Indonesia decided not to buy any more of them.
The recently launched Taigei-class attack submarine, the JS Raigei, which Jaw has talked about, is the 61st submarine Japan has built since World War II. It was constructed by Mitsubishi and Kawasaki shipyards, which have an advantage in terms of economy of scale. Their investment in factory buildings, equipment, design and more was apportioned long ago, so of course they face lower costs than Taiwan, which is doing all these things for the first time.
As well as getting some of Japan’s pricing wrong, Jaw overlooked the advantage of economies of scale that their submarine-building industry enjoys. His perspective is as absurd as comparing Taiwan’s auto industry with Japan’s Toyota.
As for the air-independent propulsion (AIP) system Jaw praised, it has disadvantages due to its complex structure, such as low power and that it occupies precious space within a submarine, not to mention the high cost of licensing the technology. For all these reasons, even Japan has stopped using AIP and switched to lithium-ion batteries instead.
Cheng Wen-lon (鄭文隆), chairman of shipbuilder CSBC Corp, Taiwan, said that mass-produced Hai Kun-class subs would use lithium-ion batteries, just like Japan.
Jaw deliberately ignores the procurement situations of other countries. For example, Singapore in 2017 commissioned Germany to build its Type 218SG Invincible-class submarines, which have a displacement of 2,200 tonnes and cost NT$27.9 billion each, or NT$12.68 million per tonne.
Sweden’s Type A26 Blekinge-class submarines, the first two of which are under construction, have a displacement of 1,930 tonnes and cost NT$24.12 billion each, or NT$12.5 million per tonne. Spain’s S80 Plus-class submarines, which have a displacement of 3,426 tonnes, cost NT$33.64 billion each, or NT$9.82 million per tonne. Although construction of the S80 started in 2007, it was not until last year that the first submarine went into service. During that time, it was plagued by buoyancy calculation errors, while construction costs soared.
The unit cost of Hai Kun-class submarines is expected to be about NT$26.13 billion. That works out at NT$8.71 million per tonne, which is lower than the new-generation submarines ordered or built by Singapore, Sweden, Spain and South Korea.
Jaw is selectively using the submarines’ displacements, the apportionment of initial expenditures, the relatively little-known AIP technology and the differences in economies of scale to mislead voters into believing that the Hai Kun’s development was a case of malfeasance. In so doing, he ignores the safety and security of navy officers and sailors.
Voters should use their ballots to throw politicians like Jaw into the dustheap of history and ensure that Taiwanese soldiers and sailors have excellent equipment to operate as they fulfill their duty to protect the nation.
Chu-Ke Feng-yun is a military blogger.
Translated by Julian Clegg
A response to my article (“Invite ‘will-bes,’ not has-beens,” Aug. 12, page 8) mischaracterizes my arguments, as well as a speech by former British prime minister Boris Johnson at the Ketagalan Forum in Taipei early last month. Tseng Yueh-ying (曾月英) in the response (“A misreading of Johnson’s speech,” Aug. 24, page 8) does not dispute that Johnson referred repeatedly to Taiwan as “a segment of the Chinese population,” but asserts that the phrase challenged Beijing by questioning whether parts of “the Chinese population” could be “differently Chinese.” This is essentially a confirmation of Beijing’s “one country, two systems” formulation, which says that
“History does not repeat itself, but it rhymes” (attributed to Mark Twain). The USSR was the international bully during the Cold War as it sought to make the world safe for Soviet-style Communism. China is now the global bully as it applies economic power and invests in Mao’s (毛澤東) magic weapons (the People’s Liberation Army [PLA], the United Front Work Department, and the Chinese Communist Party [CCP]) to achieve world domination. Freedom-loving countries must respond to the People’s Republic of China (PRC), especially in the Indo-Pacific (IP), as resolutely as they did against the USSR. In 1954, the US and its allies
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi arrived in China yesterday, where he is to attend a summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) and Russian President Vladimir Putin today. As this coincides with the 50 percent US tariff levied on Indian products, some Western news media have suggested that Modi is moving away from the US, and into the arms of China and Russia. Taiwan-Asia Exchange Foundation fellow Sana Hashmi in a Taipei Times article published yesterday titled “Myths around Modi’s China visit” said that those analyses have misrepresented India’s strategic calculations, and attempted to view
When Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) stood in front of the Potala Palace in Lhasa on Thursday last week, flanked by Chinese flags, synchronized schoolchildren and armed Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) troops, he was not just celebrating the 60th anniversary of the establishment of the “Tibet Autonomous Region,” he was making a calculated declaration: Tibet is China. It always has been. Case closed. Except it has not. The case remains wide open — not just in the hearts of Tibetans, but in history records. For decades, Beijing has insisted that Tibet has “always been part of China.” It is a phrase
RSS