Taiwan Needs Our Help Now

A missile contract that won’t be fulfilled until 2029 demonstrates that our foreign military sales program is unacceptably slow.

By and
25
A Harpoon missile. (Photograph from Wikimedia Commons.)

The Department of Defense announced on April 7 that the Navy had awarded a procurement contract for 400 Harpoon anti-ship cruise missiles for Taiwan. On its face, the announcement is certainly welcome news. The missiles will accompany the new Harpoon Coastal Defense System (HCDS), which can play a potentially pivotal role in helping Taiwan deter aggression from Beijing, namely an amphibious assault or maritime blockade.

What the announcement actually reveals, though, is that the U.S. foreign military sales program is far too slow and in dire need of reform.

The State Department notified Congress of its decision to approve a possible foreign military sale (FMS) to Taiwan on October 26, 2020. That notification included 400 RGM-84L-4 Harpoon Block II Surface Launched Missiles, 100 launcher transporter units, 25 radar trucks, and associated support equipment and services. While the Navy awarded the contract for the 100 launchers and 25 radar units in March 2022, the contract for the accompanying missiles remained elusive—until this month.

The contract award for the missiles came almost two-and-a-half years after the administration notified Congress of the possible sale. That’s almost as long as it took the United States to prepare and launch the D-Day landings after entering World War II. In other words, completing the paperwork (developing and finalizing a contract) so the manufacturer could begin to bend metal and build the missiles for Taiwan took the U.S. government almost as long (not counting modest pre-war preparations) as it took to prepare for one of the largest amphibious invasions in human history.

Speaking of amphibious invasions with history-changing consequences, the whole point of delivering the HCDS to Taiwan is to convince Beijing that it cannot accomplish its objectives in Taiwan with force at an acceptable cost. Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine reminds us that deterrence is better than dealing with the consequences of an invasion that might have been avoided. But the People’s Republic of China is in the midst of the most aggressive military expansion and modernization effort in its history, making deterrence easier said than done.

To make matters worse, the deliveries of the Harpoon missiles to Taiwan are not expected to be complete before March 2029, thanks in part to the delay in awarding the contract. And if what’s past is prologue, that may be an optimistic estimate. A June 8, 2022, U.S. Government Accountability Office report stated that “over half” of 29 major defense acquisition programs reviewed reported delays in the previous year.

The additional delay in the Harpoon missiles’ delivery could prove particularly costly. U.S. military leaders have warned that Beijing could launch its aggression against Taiwan by 2027. Indeed, Beijing concluded three days of aggressive naval and air military exercises around Taiwan on April 10 that Chinese state television referred to as a “multi-directional island-encompassing blockade situation.”

What is most concerning is that Taiwan needs the HCDS system more than any other system that is backordered in the FMS debacle. The ground-based system will provide valuable additional anti-ship capacity that can help deter both an invasion and a maritime blockade scenario by placing even the most advanced Chinese warships at risk. Moreover, the mobility of the launchers will make them more difficult for the Chinese military to target, creating dilemmas for military planners contemplating aggression.

The war in Ukraine has demonstrated the value of anti-ship cruise missiles: Ukrainian “Neptune” anti-ship cruise missiles struck and sank the Moskva, the flagship of the Russian navy’s Black Sea fleet. This pushed the Russian navy farther off the Ukrainian coastline, reducing the risk of amphibious assault and allowing the Ukrainian forces greater operational flexibility.

Ukraine also provides another great example relevant to the Taiwan FMS effort. As we have previously argued, the effort to provide Ukraine with a “MacGyver-ed” ground-launched Harpoon missile capability is a great model for Taiwan. The U.S. and Danish navies and Boeing quickly cobbled together a handful of ground launchers and older missiles to permit Kyiv to continue to place Russian Black Sea assets at risk as Ukraine’s own missile inventory dwindled.

William LaPlante, under secretary of defense for acquisition and sustainment, said “two Russia ships were sunk with those Harpoons.”

In the case of Taiwan, the United States could repurpose launchers from decommissioned U.S. Navy ships and modify and provision older Harpoon Block 1 C missiles. With some Boeing “duct tape,” the United States could MacGyver together a mix of mobile (on a vehicle) and transportable (basically a pallet that can be moved) systems to get 32 to 64 missiles tubes and 64 to 128 actual missiles delivered in a matter of 18 to 30 months. This could beat (and augment) the new procurement contract by several years.

The foreign military sales system in general, and Taiwan’s procurement of HCDS in particular, require serious attention from Congress and the State and Defense departments. Congress should scrutinize how services and contracting officers contributed to unacceptable delays between congressional notification and contract award. Lawmakers should also demand specific solutions from the administration and industry on how to expedite delivery of Taiwan’s HCDSs and other critical counter-intervention weapon systems, such as Javelin and Stinger.

There is one more thing Congress can do: work with the Navy and Boeing to implement a MacGyver Harpoon solution for Taiwan. If it can be done for Ukraine, it can be done for Taiwan.

Unfortunately, the situation in the Taiwan Strait is increasingly dire, and the U.S. government is dawdling when it needs to be sprinting to deliver arms to a beleaguered partner. The good news is that the United States has demonstrated it can move quickly when threats to core interests necessitate doing so. It’s time to take the lessons we’ve learned from Ukraine and apply them to Taiwan.

25
By and
Comments (25)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Sean Smith

    I believe we have a duty to defend Taiwan and every other democracy from aggression and conquest by evil dictatorships. If we don't stand for that, we don't really stand for anything. That said, Taiwan is an island about 3 times the size of the Big Island of Hawaii. It has very few places where amphibious forces can be landed, and its mountainous terrain makes landing paratroopers problematic. It's a VERY wealthy nation. It's also a technologically proficient and thoroughly industrialized country more than capable of developing and manufacturing its own advanced weaponry. With all that in mind, it's a target that should be relatively easy to harden and make far too costly to attempt to take. Why this hasn't already happened in the decades of Chinese saber rattling since 1949--with or without our help--is somewhat baffling to me. Wealthy countries that are more than capable of funding their own self-defense have become overly reliant on the US. Taiwan has been on notice of the looming threat for a very, very long time. That island should be bristling like a porcupine with air and sea defenses capable of repelling anything anyone throws at it. Why is it up to us to do something they've apparently neglected to take care of in all this time?

    Collapse
    1. Mark

      Very fair point. I'm pretty critical of the Biden admin's sluggishness in beefing up deterrence and preparing for a conflict that is becoming increasingly more likely, but, indeed, what about the Taiwanese? It's their country, after all. Why aren't they moving at warp speed right now?

      Collapse
  2. Avatar photo
    Ben Connelly

    Foreign military sales is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to procurement problems. Totally agree with the authors regarding Taiwan, however reform of the US defense industry is easier said than done. Doesn’t help that the American people aren’t invested in said reform.

    Collapse
  3. Avatar photo
    DougAz

    I agree with the authors on the need to supply all forms of non nuclear arms to Taiwan.

    It is unfortunate that again, FDD authors provdiea narrow partisan analysis, instead of an objective analysis and placement of root causes of the delays.

    My understanding is that the US Defense Industry had an 18 month unfulfilled backlogs. Backlogs mean let contracts. Not pending contracts.

    Defense contractors are public companies. They have internal funds like IRAD to spend. Further, incremental capacity increase flexes are significantly lower costs than new CAPEX.

    The Defense industry is solely responsible for understanding its own capacity in production and staffing.

    A truth here in Tucson is that Raytheon has had difficulties in hiring staff. Not uncommon as it's a issue everywhere.

    JIT and Lean Manufacturing killed us during the pandemic. Complex production systems need innprocess inventory to flex to capacity spikes. You can't run such business at 95% capacity with only hours and days of in-process inventory.

    Collapse
    1. R. James

      What has been the demand signal from the federal government over the last thirty years, especially for the maritime forces? Acquisition is a downstream problem from capacity and capacity is a downstream problem from demand. Low demand, low capacity. Low capacity, low acquisition flexibility. And this is during peacetime....what happens if we actually have to fight a large-scale naval war again?

      Collapse
  4. R. James

    DOD acquisition process and weapons procurement and resupply in general is a shit show. FMS is just the tip of the iceberg. We are sleep-walking into a disaster vis-a-vis the Taiwan situation.

    Collapse
  5. Chek6Man

    Your article is one-sided and does not provide a complete analysis of the Acquisition process for FMS programs. You chose to ignore completely the role that the manufacturer plays in this process. On average, the development and submission of a proposal of this size take between 6-9 months to be submitted by the contractor. Survey any of the large defense contractors, and they will tell you the same for acquisitions of this size. Why? Because FMS acquisitions follow the same acquisition rules used for the acquisition for the US services. Analysis of the proposal and negotiation of the contract add additional months to the process. This is not an FMS problem but a defense acquisition problem. The system is not designed for speed. Only Congress can change the rules. The maker of the Harpoon provides the delivery schedule, not the US Government. Trying to decrease the production time would impact costs to the FMS customer, and the plant itself has limited capacity. All of these factors contribute to a missile production lead time of 3-4 years to complete the order. While you have touched on a problem, your article is shallow and does not address the real problems associated with the acquisition of defense systems and the serious lack of production capacity in the defense industrial base to respond to a wartime scenario.

    Collapse
    1. R. James

      It is an indictment of the entire acquisition process and the question of supply, not only for weapons but for spare parts and logistical class provisions. There is too much red tape and the acquisition process takes too long and cost too much. This not only true of weapons but DOD part and supply acquisition as well. This process is not fit for purpose especially considering the real possibility of a peer-to-peer fight in the short to midterm. You make an excellent point as to the capacity problem too. That is the bigger of the two problems but both acquisition and capacity need to be addressed. Capacity is driven by available manufacturing sites, which is driven by defense demand. Three decades of shrinking demand and defense budgets, especially in the maritime industry, has resulted in too few manufacturers left in business to support demand. Even more worrying due to the complexity of modern weapons and maritime ships, even in the event of war and mobilization of the economy, the expertise and infrastructure needed to produce these weapons and parts to meet such a demand will not be scalable in the short or even medium term.

      Collapse
      1. Chek6Man

        Well said. Can’t argue with anything you said. I just wish this article had used the costal defense program to highlight these points. Instead it blames those who have to work inside this system as the reason for the long delays. I would have expected a better researched effort on the authors part before publishing.

        Collapse
  6. DTruitt

    The ChiCom threat to Taiwan is grossly overblown by people here in the US who want to sell arms and build up our military forces, and of course it is hyped by the ChiComs themselves in an attempt to intimidate the ROCs (Republic of China - that's their name, not "Taiwan" which is just a geographical feature).

    So many yakkers act as if launching successful large scale amphibious invasions of hostile territory is easy peasy - the truth could not be more different.

    The sine qua non of amphibious invasions was the Allied invasion of Normandy in the summer of 1944. That invasion required planning for more than two years and a humongous production machine of both materiel and men. The numbers are simply staggering, far beyond what the ChiComs are able to field today:

    6,000 ships
    12,000 aircraft
    millions of tons of equipment and supplies and oil delivered to a makeshift beach and artificial harbor that was eventually constructed, and then blown away in a storm.
    2 million soldiers

    The ChiComs have nothing remotely like this available to invade the ROC.

    Also, the only way the D Day campaign was successful was that the Allies had 100% control of both the air and the seas (the Luftwaffe and Kriegsmarine having been utterly destroyed by the summer of 1944), which of course the ChiComs will NOT have. Other factors in favor of the Allies included having as their target a nearly uninhabited agricultural land, with its few occupants being anti-Nazi, plus Hitler's incompetent preparations for and response to the invasion, including refusing to release control of the panzer divisions to the defenders, and being convinced the invasion was going to be at Pas de Calais, not Normandy, so put the bulk of his forces there.

    Whereas the ROC has 26 million citizens who are not willing to bend the knee to the ChiComs - their resistance will matter very much. And the ROCs know exactly where the ChiComs have to land, a relatively small beach area.

    Despite all the planning, preparation, and massive resources as well as other advantages, the D Day landing easily could have failed if Hitler had not effed up the response.

    The ChiComs are making all of the threatening gestures not as a prelude to invasion - they are simply trying to scare the ROCs into capitulating without a shot being fired. The ChiComs know they don't have the advantages that the Allies did in the summer of '44. They also know that a failed invasion attempt would break their regime completely. They're not idiots or gamblers.

    This does not mean that the US should not assist the ROC with their island defenses - of course we should. But it is not dire nor is there any reason for American military people to be running around with their hair on fire over ChiCom threats. Be stable, be steady, be firm, that the US will stand by the ROCs in maintaining their freedom from intimidation by the ChiComs. Continue to supply them with weapons, knowing that most of the ROC weaponry is home grown, and it is very good stuff. But more is needed.Show lessShow less

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Retired Prosecutor

      Good luck fighting WWII when the Chinese do make a move on Taiwan. They will -- unlike the German situation -- accomplish complete air superiority within a matter of hours.

      Once again we need to take our adversaries at their word, instead of pretending that they don't mean what they say. It all goes back to the Afghanistan debacle, where we sent both authoritarian nations a big "go ahead" signal. If we get involved (as we should), and if there are major casualties (as there will be), I don't see a lot of staying power on the part of the Biden Administration and the American people.

      Collapse
    2. R. James

      100% wrong.

      If you are planning on the next war based on the requirements and tactics of the last war, you are probably going to lose it. The CCP threat to Taiwan specifically and US interests generally is not a conspiracy by the military industrial complex. The Taiwan issue is the most likely cause of a peer-to-peer conflict in short to medium term. And by short term, it is quite possibly as little as two years away. The CCP in general is the greatest foreign threat to US interests and will continue to be for next couple decades at least.

      This is not 1944. There are weapon systems and areas of warfare that simply did not exist in WWII. If you are assuming the PLA will conduct a 1940s style amphibious assault, you will easily underestimate the threat for capacity reasons. But a modern assault will combine modern air and amphibious assets supported by missile forces, cyber, electronic and information warfare and civilian and military logistics. Any invasion will also occur under the blanket of the PRC's A2AD network. The PRC is also not trying to invade a fully mobilized totalitarian state with a large and veteran armor force. Where does Taiwan's capacity to repel an invasion come into your calculation? Or for that matter, America's capacity to come to Taiwan's aid? Recent war games found that the US would narrowly defeat a PLA invasion of Taiwan but at the cost of over twenty warships, including two carriers, with over ten thousand casualties in a matter of weeks. And that war game is based on assumptions favorable to the US and 90 days of hostilities. If the war goes longer than three months, the casualties will be much higher.

      And that is just the capacity argument. The capacity question does not take into account the CCP's estimation of the ROC and US will to resist. Given the projected US casualties above and the US performance in Afghanistan and America's reaction to GWOT relatively low casualties, how do you know that the CCP won't judge that the projected casualties is a higher price than most Americans are willing to pay for Taiwan? What happens if the US response to a CCP lodgment on Taiwan is to balk and "re-define" our commitments?

      The capacity question also doesn't take into account the CCP's strategic goals. You mention a potential cost to the regime by invading but you don't talk about the potential cost to the regime by not forcing the re-unification of Taiwan with the rest of China. Xi Jinping Thought as expressed in the "Chinese Dream" of "national rejuvenation" has promised that not only will China be the most powerful country in the world by 2049, but also that all territorial questions will be settled. Xi has described Taiwan as "sacred ground" and has promised that Taiwan will be forcefully re-unified with the mainland if necessary. These are not empty words they are integral to Xi Jinping Thought on foreign policy, which IS the CCP foreign policy. Xi and the regime has staked their legitimacy on re-unification of Taiwan by 2049. Due to China's long-term demographic, environmental and economic challenges, it is very likely Xi and his inner circle have concluded that they do not have until 2049 to achieve Taiwan re-unification. This will make forceful reunification more likely in the near to midterm, since the long-term window has closed. What is certain, the CCP evaluates the risk to the regime of high casualties very differently than the US. Authoritarian regimes with a totalitarian police state do not have to worry very much about public opinion, at least not to the extent that a liberal democracy does.

      Make no mistake, the PRC is a totalitarian authoritarian regime controlling the second largest economy in the world, the largest manufacturing base in the world, the largest army and navy in the world, all organized under a single ruler who is increasingly seen by his own people as less of a dictator and more of a demi-god. The CCP's policy under Xi Jinping Thought is by definition: state top-down corporatist, revanchist, expansionist, nationalist, militaristic, autarkic, and completely hostile to the concept of human rights and liberal democracy. A poisonous cocktail of ideologies wedded to immense capacity that the world has not seen for a generation. The PRC strategic end goal is to break and reorganize the international world order so that all countries are "under heaven" with China as the most powerful country at the center of the world.

      We underestimate the PRC at our own peril. It is no mere coincidence that both the Romans (Si vis pacem, para bellum) and Sun Tzu ("In war, prepare for peace; in peace, prepare for war") preached the same gospel of readiness.

      Collapse
    3. Avatar photo
      Jeff Younger

      Who says China will try to replicate DDay? They could simply blockade the island and bomb it into submission (or rubble). China has options, and they’re keenly aware of the opportunities presented by having a doddering, senile, ice-cream-slurping imbecile in the White House. Joe Biden was never particularly smart, even in his “prime” (circa 1988 or thereabouts). He’s always been a fool with horrible instincts WRT foreign policy. And with the GOP paint-chip-eating plurality of Trumpers bound and determined to see their orange savior atop the ticket in 2024 (guaranteeing Biden’s re-election), Xi may have an additional four years to complete the annexation of the ROC. Xi was blessed to come to power at a time when American politics produced the worst presidential nominees in modern history. God help us all, and our allies who are being abandoned to suffer the tender mercies of authoritarian dictators in Beijing and Moscow.

      Collapse
      1. DTruitt

        Wars aren’t won with bombs alone - it always takes boots on the ground.

        The US bombarded the hell out of a very small island called Iwo Jima, with a massive force of heavy battleships, cruisers, destroyers, and carrier based aircraft. The Japanese simply held out in caves, and when we landed it cost us 27 thousand casualties, more than 1/4 of the invasion force, on an island just a few miles long.

        Collapse
        1. R. James

          Iwo Jima is a pretty poor example to compare to a potential invasion of Taiwan. The Imperial Japanese Army was soaked in Bushido ideology which regarded surrender as worse than death. Iwo Jima even compared with other WWII amphibious assaults was extremely deadly (only Okinawa was worse). It is unlikely the Taiwanese people will show the same level of resolve. And again this only looks at the issue of will to fight and does not address capacity, let alone comparative analysis of the competing will and capacity of PRC forces.

          Collapse
  7. Avatar photo
    Wilhelm

    I'm not a huge FDR fan. But he was able to expand and hasten the military's growth and some war-time production ahead of U.S. entry into World War II.

    Unfortunately, our current president's prescience seems to be limited to which days dessert is the stewed prunes. And despite his years in the Senate, he's more inclined to be thinking about his noble fight against the Hamster Ramification Act of 1999 than what he needs to be doing today.

    If House Republicans are serious about the threat of China, get on with it. Expedite the process, please.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      DougAz

      It's unfortunate you single out Biden here. The Defense industry us predominantly at fault

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Retired Prosecutor

        The Defense industry is at fault?

        Please explain, and provide details coherently. I naively thought those giant corporations operated more or less agnostically to simply make a profit for their shareholders. Obviously you are privy to some hidden but sinister design that I overlooked. Elucidate.

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          DougAz

          I commented all over this point. Read those in total. But for you:
          A. Leadership is at fault
          B. Primary - Bush-Cheney for their ill begotten Iraq war
          B. 1 Because they took their off of Putin, China, the Navy, Air Force
          C. Lessor responsible are Obama and Trump.
          D. The irresponsible, incompetent liars and myth creating DoD Generals.."it's all going fine" Bullshit.
          E. The lying CIA...just like the Unions Cons hate...these guys have been expanding scope and job security at the detriment of the Navy's development and Air Force /, missles.
          F. The Defense industry has:
          F.1 awareness themselves
          F.2. Influence
          F.3 Their own funds like IRAD.
          F.4 Naturally, incredible cost overruns of the Seawolf submarine, the next gen fighters overun and supply chain management screw ups are... ha.. my fault.

          Hope that helps RP.

          Collapse
          1. Avatar photo
            Retired Prosecutor

            Points A through E have nothing to do with your claim that the defense industry is "predominantly at fault." Sub-Points F-1 through F4 do not in any way explain how the defense industry is at fault for our military unpreparedness. I don't understand your reasoning here.

            Collapse
      2. R. James

        The defense industry serves a demand just like every other industry. It is true that the blame should be bipartisan, but three decades of federal civilian leadership in the White House and the Pentagon are to blame. They bought into the "end of history" false narrative after the Cold War. They believed the days of great power conflict were over. They drank deep from the poison chalice of divest to invest and "transformational" defense technology which failed. They allowed decades of real dollar defense cuts especially to the maritime services and the industry that supports them, which in turn caused them to whither and age. They were wrong. And now we are not ready for the coming fight.

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          DougAz

          Rule 1. It is Leadership fault.

          Starting in my opinion with the ill begotten Iraq War. With that strategic misfire, Bush-Cheney, and the Defense Department took their eyes off both Putin and China. Not improved by Obama and Trump. Biden at least remembers the Cold War is a vigorous anti Communist warrior.

          Collapse