jih@seismo.CSS.GOV (Rong-Song Jih) (06/27/91)
From: jih@seismo.CSS.GOV (Rong-Song Jih) Taiwan is building its 8 Oliver H. Perry class frigates at Badouzi (aka Ho-ping Dau) shipyard, Keelung, to replace its Gearing, Fletcher and Allen Sumner class destroyers that all have hulls of 45-50 years old. The first 6 Perry-class frigates are quite similar in design to the original USS version as a typical fleet escort with emphasis on ASW capability. The later 2 vessels, however, will be a combination of AEGIS-type destroyer (e.g., JMDF DD Yukikaze and USS DDG Arleigh Burke) and Perry-class frigate. In other words, it will have Perry's hull all right, but the phased-array radar (which constitutes the bridge structure), the 32-cell vertically launched SAM (Standard SM-2 and/or Taiwan-made Tien Gong), and 76mm gun mounted in the "A" position etc will make the superstructure of the two later vessels remarkably different from their sisters. Of course, everything has to be reduced in size since Perry's displacement is about one half of JMDF DD Yukikaze. Although the detailed design and equipment options are not finalized yet, the basic idea of installing a decent air-defense system on the best hull that is currently available to Taiwan is indeed a reasonable and perhaps inevitable choice. I have been puzzled for years by Taiwan's installation of Sea Charpparal and Sidewinders on some of those aging destroyers. The extremely short ranges of these two SAM make them useful only when a Kamikaze-type attack is encountered --- which is very unlikely in the 90's. With the adoption of a light-weight AEGIS, Taiwan appears to be really serious in improving its fleet AAW capability for the first time. However, I also noticed that Taiwan's navy seems to have exaggerated its superstition to an amazing degree! The pennant numbers of these new Perry-class frigates run from 1101 through 1110 with 1102 and 1104 missing. In other words, Taiwan's navy commanders are not only afraid of using any pennant number that would have digits sum up to "4" (such as 13, 22, 31, 40, 121, 202, 211, and 1102) as they have been during the past 36 years, but are also avoiding a pennant number like 1104 which won't fall in the category I just described. The missing of pennant number 1102 can be traced 36 years back to the sinking of DE Tai-Ping (CNS DE22, ex-USS DE Decker) in an encounter with Communist China's torpedo boats near Tser-Chiang coast, southeast China, on Nov 14 1954. In Mandarin, the official language used by both governments of Red and Blue China, "4" sounds very like "death" --- which some navy staff had used as an excuse in reporting DE22's misfortune to the late Nationalist leader Chiang Kai-Shek. Generalissimo Chiang, in spite of his claimed Christian religion, also left many interesting stories himself that can only be explained with his personal superstition. The promotion of commander Li Yu-shi to rear admiral because of Li's "good" first name was a wide-spread gossip in Taiwan's military 40 years ago. Li was the captain of CNS DE21 Tai-Kang (ex-USS DE Wyffels) on which Chiang stayed on board for two weeks after Chiang's resignation of the presidency. BTW, "Yu-shi" means "the Great Seal". Generalissimo Chiang passed away 16 years ago, and it has been 25 years since the very last naval encounter in Taiwan Strait between the two navies. Now the new generation of Taiwan's admirals found that even the pennant number like 1104 must be kept away from the fleet. After all, no one would like to command a ship with a pennant number which would read "Yao Yao Dong Shi" --- meaning "Will... Will... Freeze to Death" or "Swing, Swing, and Freeze to Death". As planned, USS Arleigh Burke will be commissioned on Jul 4, 1991. It would be a big plus for both Taiwan's navy and the contractor, "China" SB Corporation, if they can deliver the 8 frigates on schedule without cost overrun. Rongsong Jih
henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) (06/29/91)
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) >From: jih@seismo.CSS.GOV (Rong-Song Jih) >I have been puzzled for years by Taiwan's installation of >Sea Charpparal and Sidewinders on some of those aging destroyers. >The extremely short ranges of these two SAM make >them useful only when a Kamikaze-type attack is encountered >--- which is very unlikely in the 90's... Britain's naval planners thought point-blank-range bombing attacks very unlikely in the 1980s, too, but the Falklands proved otherwise... and showed up some major deficiencies in RN short-range air defences. Light antiaircraft guns are also very short-ranged, but by the end of the Falklands War the British ships bristled with them. You can simplify the problem of air defence considerably if you assume that it will all be handled at long range; the trouble is, it won't. -- Lightweight protocols? TCP/IP *is* | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology lightweight already; just look at OSI. | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry