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
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
When a recall campaign targeting the opposition Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators was launched, something rather disturbing happened. According to reports, Hualien County Government officials visited several people to verify their signatures. Local authorities allegedly used routine or harmless reasons as an excuse to enter people’s house for investigation. The KMT launched its own recall campaigns, targeting Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) lawmakers, and began to collect signatures. It has been found that some of the KMT-headed counties and cities have allegedly been mobilizing municipal machinery. In Keelung, the director of the Department of Civil Affairs used the household registration system
RSS