Taiwan service for US destroyers

[ed316]

Taiwan service for US destroyers
By Caroline Gluck
BBC News, Taipei
Taiwan has formally commissioned into service two US-built naval destroyers aimed at boosting the island's defences against any attack from rival China.

China regards Taiwan as part of its territory and has threatened force if it formally declares independence.
At the ceremony in northern Taiwan, President Chen Shui-bian urged legislators to swiftly pass an arms budget for new armaments from the US.
The arms package has been blocked in parliament for the past two years.
White-uniformed sailors formed a guard of honour at the commissioning ceremony for the two Kidd Class destroyers at a naval base in Suao.
The vessels - the last of four purchased from the US - will form the backbone of Taiwan's naval fleet.
Built 20 years ago but recently refitted, the vessels are capable of repelling surface, air and submarine attacks.
Political storm
The ceremony took place amid a fierce debate over the purchase of future weapons from the US.
Opposition parties in parliament have blocked a multi-billion dollar arms package for more than two years. They have questioned the high cost and fear it will force Taiwan into an arms race with China.
A slimmed-down arms bill was rejected by a procedural committee earlier this week, marking the 62nd time the budget has been blocked.
At the ceremony, President Chen urged the opposition to approve a new arms budget.
He said they had a responsibility to strengthen the island's security in the face of China's continued military modernisation.
He also defended similar comments made by senior US official in Taiwan Stephen Young last week.
Mr Young had urged lawmakers to pass a new arms bill by the end of the year and not play partisan politics.
But his comments had set off a political storm, with many opposition lawmakers accusing him of interfering in Taiwan's domestic affairs. The US does not have formal diplomatic relations with Taiwan but Washington is required by law to help the island maintain its defences.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/h...ic/6109414.stm

Published: 2006/11/02 13:40:40 GMT

© BBC MMVI

[phoilme]

Thanks for the post. I served on one of them, the USS Scott DDG-995. The Scott went through a major re-fit in 1988-89. It was, at the time, one of a kind.

[wicked_hind]

Weren't the Kidd class destroyers actually modified Spruance class destroyers that were originally built for the Iranian Navy?

[saigonsmuggler]

yes i think so. I don't think there is any Spruance/Kidd class destroyer left in US Navy service right now.

There were four Kidd destroyers at one time...

[usa320]

Weren't the Kidd class destroyers actually modified Spruance class destroyers that were originally built for the Iranian Navy?

Yes. The Kidd class were designed for Iran, with a Vertical Launch system and updated radar- updates that were later incorporated into many of the Spruance DD's. All Spruances have been replaced by Arliegh Burkes now, i think most of them are mothballed for the time being, but slated for the chopping block. The ship just doest have the flexibility of newer ships like the Arleigh Burke or Type 45.

[Ordie]

Weren't the Kidd class destroyers actually modified Spruance class destroyers that were originally built for the Iranian Navy?

Yes

They were classified as cruisers in the Imperial Iranian Navy.
They are modified Spruance Class. The difference was the forward Standard ARM missile launcher, air filtration and air conditioning system to deal with Persian Gulf weather.

Good vessels with gas turbine engines.
The crew size and maintenance may be an issue, however, up until recently, the Taiwanese were able to hold on and modify the Gearing and Fletcher Classes from the 1940 and 50s.

What they desperately need are subs.

[sferrin]

Yes. The Kidd class were designed for Iran, with a Vertical Launch system and updated radar- updates that were later incorporated into many of the Spruance DD's. All Spruances have been replaced by Arliegh Burkes now, i think most of them are mothballed for the time being, but slated for the chopping block. The ship just doest have the flexibility of newer ships like the Arleigh Burke or Type 45.

The Kidd class does not have VLS. They're basically air defense versions of the Spruance class with some modifications for serving in the Middle East. They also got NTU as I recall which, unfortunately they can't take full advantage of because they're hobbled by the Mk26's limitations. From what I've heard from those who served on the Leahys or Belknaps on other forums NTU combined with SM-2ER actually had some advantages over Aegis (most likely range).

[sferrin]

Yes

They were classified as cruisers in the Imperial Iranian Navy.
They are modified Spruance Class. The difference was the forward Standard ARM missile launcher, air filtration and air conditioning system to deal with Persian Gulf weather.

Good vessels with gas turbine engines.
The crew size and maintenance may be an issue, however, up until recently, the Taiwanese were able to hold on and modify the Gearing and Fletcher Classes from the 1940 and 50s.

What they desperately need are subs.

I agree. We should sell them retired LA's for the cost to bring them back into service since none of the European countries have the balls to sell them any cutting edge subs. Maybe we sell them some range limited Tomahawks too just to really stir the sh!t. Wonder if they'd have any luck purchasing SSKs from Japan.

[phoilme]

The Scott was the re-fit with what I was told at the time was a generic Aegis system. Kept the Mk 26 launchers and added Harpoon launchers on the O-6 level. We did experiment with armored box launchers on the bow. They were removed before the shake-down in 1989.

I came from an Adams Class destroyer and was amazed with the size and crew size. THE Ricketts DDG-5 was about 100 feet shorter with about 80 more men. But the size was actually about 2 to 1.

[white_raven0]

Well if you think about it this way (from some type of Taiwan view)

Why shouldn't we buy overpriced American stuff?

1. If they don't come and help us, we ll lose, so why bother spending so much money?

2. If they come and help us, then why do we need to spend so much money buying their stuff?

Therefore, there's really no reason to spend soo much money to buy overpriced American stuff.

[Ordie]

I agree. We should sell them retired LA's for the cost to bring them back into service since none of the European countries have the balls to sell them any cutting edge subs. Maybe we sell them some range limited Tomahawks too just to really stir the sh!t. Wonder if they'd have any luck purchasing SSKs from Japan.

LA are nukes. Congress will not go for that.

Japan has strict laws about exporting weapons and technology.

South Korea produces Type 209 subs, but it has a close strategic and economic relations with the PRC.

Options:

Wait for the US to produce a deisel electric sub.

Have the US purchase the Israeli Dolphins or second hand type 209's and pass them along to Taiwan.

Or, reverse engineer the Walruses.

[Laworkerbee]

Well if you think about it this way (from some type of Taiwan view)

Why shouldn't we buy overpriced American stuff?

1. If they don't come and help us, we ll lose, so why bother spending so much money?

2. If they come and help us, then why do we need to spend so much money buying their stuff?

Therefore, there's really no reason to spend soo much money to buy overpriced American stuff.

Because you A.) need to buy time and B.) America isn't coming to your rescue if you just roll over and wait for us. Why should Americans be put in harms way for anyone who isn't willing to bleed for their own freedom?

[Ordie]

Because you A.) need to buy time and B.) America isn't coming to your rescue if you just roll over and wait for us. Why should Americans be put in harms way for anyone who isn't willing to bleed for their own freedom?

Taiwan Defence Act of 1975 requires the US to come to Taiwan's defence and provide aid if attacked. The weapons provided by the US are of a defensive nature. This is why the US does not send Tomahawks, air to air refueling or long range AGM's.

Any cross strait assault may disrupt sea lanes traffic between the Straits of Melacca and Japan. In particular Japan's oil supply from the Middle East. Thus the US Navy is obligated keep sea lanes open. Moreover the JMSDF will most likely be invoved in convoy protection duties. Something that China does not want to see within the Taiwan Straits.

At this moment the Mainland government is engaged in a "economic bearhug" with Taiwanese businesses. Any overt threat of a military nature only adds fodder to the DPP.

[Andrew Chalmers]

Taiwan Defence Act of 1975 requires the US to come to Taiwan's defence and provide aid if attacked. The weapons provided by the US are of a defensive nature. This is why the US does not send Tomahawks, air to air refueling or long range AGM's.

What is this mysterious "Taiwan Defense Act of 1975"?

If you are referring to the Taiwan Relations Act of 1979 - it retains stategic ambugity for the United States - not something people in Taiwan find particularly comforting - esp given Sino-US interests in the region. It does not require the US to come to Taiwan's defense - neither does it promise aid. It just says that the US will "consider any effort to determine the future of Taiwan by other than peaceful means, including by boycots or embargoes, a threat to the peace and security of the Western Pacific area and of grave concern to the United States."

Looking at how the US public has received the losses of US lives in Iraq as a result of trying to stablize the region(a conflict the US started, a country the US destabilized) - somehow I doubt people in Taiwan will feel the US public will feel particularly responsible or some great sense of duty to defend Taiwan against the PRC even if Taiwan could hold its own for 2 weeks.

As for providing Taiwan arms of a defensive character - well, it doesn't stipulate prices offered at good faith. And "providing" is very vague - I guess if you consider having the ROC government pay high premiums for goods providing...

[Ordie]

Your right.
My bad...

Here's something to chew

SECTION. 3.

1. In furtherance of the policy set forth in section 2 of this Act, the United States will make available to Taiwan such defense articles and defense services in such quantity as may be necessary to enable Taiwan to maintain a sufficient self-defense capability.
2. The President and the Congress shall determine the nature and quantity of such defense articles and services based solely upon their judgment of the needs of Taiwan, in accordance with procedures established by law. Such determination of Taiwan's defense needs shall include review by United States military authorities in connection with recommendations to the President and the Congress.

I assume that the Military on Taiwan does not have much of a say on what they want.

It is important to aid Taiwan on the premise of deterring agression, maintaining freedom of the seas and protecting economic and strategic interests.