标签归档 武汉剁饼子论坛

　　BEIJING, July 5th, Xinhua News Agency Title: From "decoupling" to "taking risks" with China — — The "risk control" lies of "political swindlers" in the United States

　　Xinhua news agency reporter

　　In the trend of economic globalization, from time to time, we encounter counter-current obstacles; Under the development theme of win-win cooperation, noisy noises often appear.

　　"We don’t seek China ‘ Decoupling ’ , but seek ‘ De-risk ’ 。” When the "decoupling theory" went bankrupt in fact, some politicians in the United States and the West recently talked about the so-called "de-risk" to China and peddled their new rhetoric on China policy. "Decoupling" is naked anti-China political agitation, while "taking risks" hides evil intentions and attempts to contain China’s political attempts with stolen and generalized economic concepts.

　　The essence of the so-called "de-risk" in the United States and the West is to achieve selective "decoupling" through self-defined "risk", which not only covets the China dividend, but also attempts to curb the development of China. Its purpose is to draw more countries into the water, to ease the inner competition panic and maintain one’s own self-interest and hegemony by provoking opposition, promoting division and obstructing development; The consequences will be to disrupt the security and stability of the global industrial chain supply chain, undermine the foundation of normal international economic exchanges and cooperation, and hinder the development of the world economy and human progress.

　　The concept of stealing: "Rebirth" of "Decoupling Theory"

　　In just a few months, "de-risk" has changed from an economic term to a geopolitical hot word, behind which American and Western politicians spare no effort to highlight the platform and flag-waving.

　　In May this year, the Group of Seven held a summit in Japan, and formally unified its China policy as "risk removal" in the form of a joint communique, claiming that western countries "do not seek ‘ Decoupling ’ " And hope to enhance economic resilience through "risk removal" and "diversification".

　　Before and after the summit, American officials obviously increased their efforts to sell the concept of "de-risk". In the middle and late April, US Treasury Secretary Yellen and Presidential Assistant for National Security Affairs Sullivan delivered speeches on US-China relations on several occasions, emphasizing the so-called "safeguarding national security" bottom line, and downplaying the intention of "decoupling" in words. In Sullivan’s words, "de-risk" means that the United States "maintains a resilient and effective supply chain" to ensure that it is not "coerced" by other countries. US Secretary of State Blinken claimed that there is an important difference between "de-risk" and "decoupling".

　　The United States and the West abandoned "decoupling" and shouted "de-risk", which seemed to soften their positions and began to consider the issue from the "economic" level. However, after careful study of the concept essence, concept direction and behavior essence, "de-risk" is actually the "returning to life" of "decoupling theory". Under the cloak of decency, there is no substantial change in the direction of American and Western policies toward China.

　　— — From "decoupling" to "risk removal", the trend of "politicization" of economic issues between the United States and the West has not changed, and ideological considerations have always been a stumbling block to their normal economic exchanges with China.

　　Before being "enabled" by western countries, "de-risk" refers to the offside jurisdiction of financial institutions, which has been criticized by the United States, the European Union and the World Bank, and has long been placed in the dark corner of western economic textbooks as a derogatory term.

　　Until April this year, the US Treasury report still described "de-risk" as the behavior of financial institutions to terminate or restrict commercial relations indiscriminately out of fear of anti-terrorism and money laundering sanctions, arguing that this practice poses a challenge to promoting US foreign policy, and reducing the barriers related to "de-risk" is not only a US but also an international "priority".

　　Turn your hands into clouds and cover your hands for rain. In recent months, under the impetus and momentum of some western politicians, the "de-risk" classified as "business decision" by the World Bank has begun to be endowed with more political connotations, forming a complement to the western "decoupling theory" on China. The leading role of risk prevention rose from enterprises to the national level, and "business decision-making" evolved into "political decision-making". Ursula von der Leyen, President of the European Commission, said that "de-risk" includes both eliminating "economic risks" and reducing "diplomatic risks".

　　— — From "decoupling" to "risk removal", the so-called "minefield" of economic exchanges between the United States and the West with China has not changed, and "risk removal" is actually a "decoupling" of "breaking the whole into parts".

　　According to the Financial Times, the risks of economic exchanges with China in the eyes of the United States and the West mainly involve two types. One is what western countries get from China, such as new energy technologies and important mineral supplies; One is what China got from the West, such as semiconductor technology.

　　It can be said that the so-called "de-risk" in the United States and the West covers both demand and supply, fearing that the demand side will be "stuck" by China and that the supply side will not be able to "stuck" by China in the future. These are no different from promoting "decoupling" from China, completely ignoring interdependence as the inevitable result of economic globalization, and simply equating normal economic and trade exchanges with China with insecurity.

　　Gordon Flack, CEO of the US-Asia Center in Perth, University of Western Australia, believes that under the circumstance that "decoupling" from China as a whole is considered absurd, the West has begun to turn to "decoupling" from specific industries, specific enterprises and even specific products and technologies. The article on the website of the world newspaper syndicate believes that the United States and the West are promoting cooperation with China "in different ways ‘ Decoupling ’ " .

　　— — From "decoupling" to "risk removal", the policy orientation of the United States and the West to promote protectionism has not changed, and "risk removal" has given "mercantilism" a more decent excuse.

　　In April, when Sullivan gave a speech at the Brookings Institution, he created a momentum for "de-risk", claiming that the United States would "confidently" promote its industrial policy and at the same time set up a "small courtyard and high wall" to protect its advanced technology.

　　According to Gary Clyde Hufbauer, a senior researcher at the Peterson Institute for International Economics in the United States, the United States ignored economic costs and tried to impose a "technical blockade" on China on the grounds of so-called "national security". Whether it is "decoupling" or "removing risks" in wording, it is a sign that the United States has turned to the wrong path of "new mercantilism" and protectionism has gone deeper.

　　Singapore’s Straits Times believes that the industrial policy of the United States to promote the return of manufacturing industry is aggravating the tendency of protectionism, and its Inflation Reduction Act and Chip and Science Act, which cost hundreds of billions of dollars respectively, are arousing the European Union, Japan, South Korea and other countries to follow up subsidies for green technology and semiconductor industries. If these protectionist practices are "whitewashed" in the name of "removing risks", they may further erode the basic rules of the WTO.

　　Insufficient strength: the source of panic in the United States and the West

　　Some people in the United States and the West exaggerate "de-risk" to China, the essence of which is "de-China". The fundamental purpose is to block China’s economic ties with the world and safeguard its own hegemony. Changing waistcoats and inventing new rhetoric continue to curb China’s development, exposing the inability of the United States and the West to "decouple" from China, the panic mentality of competition with China and the narrow prejudice against different development paths.

　　— — "De-risk" is a discourse trap to avoid the bankruptcy of "decoupling theory".

　　From official documents to public statements, western politicians have repeatedly emphasized "not seeking ‘ Decoupling ’ " It also proves the bankruptcy of "decoupling theory" from the side. During his previous visit to China, Blinken said that complete decoupling between the United States and China would be "disastrous". Borrell, Vice-President of the European Commission, said at the shangri-la dialogue Conference in Singapore: "Our daily trade volume with China is 2.7 billion euros! To ‘ Decoupling ’ ? Don’t even think about it If we do this, we will create a global crisis. "

　　In the years since the decoupling theory was put forward, the economic and trade relations between China and its major trading partners, including western countries, are still deepening. According to official data of the United States and the European Union, in 2022, the total trade volume of goods between the United States and China and between Europe and China reached US$ 690.6 billion and Euro856.3 billion respectively, both reaching record highs.

　　The "decoupling theory" was "hit in the face" by reality, which made the United States begin to look for new pretexts. "De-risk" is in line with the nature of human beings to seek advantages and avoid disadvantages. It seems to be objective, but in fact it hides evil intentions: on the one hand, it caters to the general psychology of the international community eager to avoid risks and attempts to win over more countries "into the pit" by "de-risk"; On the other hand, China is labeled as "the source of risk" by "de-risk". Behind this rhetoric is the selfish and overbearing mentality of the United States, which wants to profit from China and is unwilling to give up containing China.

　　Bates Gill, executive director of the China Analysis Center of the Policy Institute of the Asia Society of the United States, said that "de-risk" only describes what the United States and the West are doing in more obscure terms.

　　— — "De-risk" is a "fig leaf" to cover up "malicious competition".

　　In the past few decades, the economic development momentum of China and the United States has been in sharp contrast. The reason why the United States regards China as a "risk" is that it holds a wrong understanding of China, mirrors China with the template that a strong country will dominate, and misjudges China with the trajectory of traditional western powers.

　　In terms of speed and scale, after more than 40 years of reform and opening up, China has become the world’s second largest economy, the largest manufacturing country, the largest commodity trading country and the second largest consumer market. In terms of quality and fineness, China’s R&D and innovation capabilities have been continuously enhanced, and its position in the value chain has continued to rise, narrowing the gap with the United States and even surpassing it in the fields of 5G technology and green energy technology.

　　In this process, the American economy experienced the hollowing out of industries, the Internet bubble, the subprime mortgage crisis and the sharp increase in debt, and now it is facing the risk of recession. When China acted as an important engine of world economic growth, the internal "competition panic" in the United States continued to grow, and suppressing China became its main means.

　　Graham Allison, a well-known American international political scholar, believes that more than 20 years ago, the United States was "hard to see China in the rearview mirror", but now China is following closely behind, running or surpassing in some areas, which makes the United States panic and regard China as an "all-round rival".

　　"America always tends to blame others." Stephen Perry, chairman of 48 British group clubs, believes that it seems easier for the United States to explain the rapid development of China by demonizing China than to face up to reality and compete fairly.

　　— — "De-risk" is "arrogance and prejudice" against the emerging development paradigm.

　　The key to China’s economic success lies in its development model which conforms to its own national conditions, can stand the test of practice and is different from that of the West. Seeing China as a "risk" reflects the arrogance of the United States as a "lighthouse country", which only recognizes the so-called rules and values that are beneficial to itself and does not hide its prejudice against emerging forces.

　　Fu Xiaolan, an academician of the British Academy of Social Sciences, believes that China’s innovative development path, which is driven by the government and the market, has continuously injected new impetus into China’s economic development in the past decade and set an example for other countries.

　　Obviously, the United States does not agree with this, and insists that it does not conform to American values as a challenge and security threat. Yellen’s recent speech on US-China economic relations made it clear that the United States will safeguard national security interests and human rights, even though targeted measures may have a negative impact on the economy.

　　Henry Kissinger, the former US Secretary of State, wrote in his book Great Diplomacy that Americans think they have an obligation to promote American values to the whole world. "There is no country like the United States that absolutely does not allow foreign interference in internal affairs, but also wishful thinking that American values are universally applicable."

　　The United States draws a line with values, generalizes the concept of national security, abuses export control measures, artificially interferes with normal economic and trade exchanges, and attempts to attack and weaken the development momentum of China, which runs counter to the principle of market economy and fair competition that the United States has always advertised.

　　The thief shouted to catch the thief: the real risk of "going to risk"

　　In a market economy, there are risks in all economic activities. The United States and the West can’t correctly view the meaning of risk, but they distort and exaggerate the normal economic exchanges with China as so-called "risk", which is euphemistically called "risk control", and the final result may be "risk out of control".

　　— — To "decouple" China in the name of "removing risks" and ignore the fact of China’s economic contribution will bring greater economic risks to the West itself.

　　"People usually don’t commit suicide to reduce their fear of death." Carl Bildt, the former Swedish Prime Minister, questioned "de-risk". "Is it just because we are afraid of possible risks in the future that we have reason not to trade with China from now on?"

　　Stephen roach, a senior researcher at Yale University in the United States, believes that American companies have gained the double benefits of improving efficiency and developing the market from investing in China for many years. "But as we turn our attention to ‘ Security issues ’ These advantages are quietly disappearing. "

　　The latest poll released by the European Association for Foreign Relations in early June shows that most respondents from 11 EU countries do not agree with the EU’s policy of "de-risk", 46% think China is an "ally or necessary partner", and only about 30% think China is a "competitor or rival".

　　— — Decoupling China in the name of "removing risks" and ignoring the deep integration between China and the world will bring risks to world development and human progress.

　　Economic globalization is an inevitable trend of world development, and countries are closely linked through division of labor and cooperation. You have me and I have you. China occupies an important position in this system, accounting for about 18% of the total economic output, and its average contribution rate to world economic growth during the decade from 2012 to 2021 exceeded 30%; The scale of manufacturing industry ranks first in the world for 13 consecutive years, and it is the country with the most complete industrial categories and the most complete industrial system in the world, providing the world with a large number of high-quality and cheap industrial raw materials and finished products. At the same time, China has the largest and most growing middle-income group in the world and has become a major emerging high-end market in the world.

　　According to the calculation of purchasing power parity, developing countries will account for about 60% of the global economy by 2035, and most of them will take China as their largest trading partner.

　　Non-cooperation is the biggest risk. The attempt by the United States and the West to exclude China from the international economic system will not only greatly weaken the momentum of global economic growth, but also undermine global trade rules, tear apart the global economic and scientific and technological system, and cause great losses to the world. The Straits Times commented that the negative impact of "de-risk" will go far beyond the United States, the European Union and China, and also affect other trading partners. "De-risk" is putting all parties concerned at risk.

　　— — The fact of "decoupling" China in the name of "de-risk" reflects the consistent routine of the US side to reverse black and white, trying to cover up that it is the biggest risk and the source of global chaos.

　　By virtue of its advantages in the global economy and finance, the United States has been reckless for a long time, bringing disasters to other countries and even the world economy many times. The history of the world economic crisis in recent years is largely "the history of American insurrection".

　　In the Asian financial crisis in 1997, American hedge funds used the financial system defects of Asian economies to "attack" the stock market and foreign exchange market crazily, and they made a lot of money, but the bubbles in many economies burst one after another, and their development was seriously affected.

　　In 2008, during the international financial crisis, American financial capital engaged in subprime loans in order to gain high profits. Credit rating agencies, known as "gatekeepers" of the financial market, stuck the aura of "authority" and "justice" and labeled "toxic" assets in the United States as "high quality", misleading global investors. Eventually, the crisis broke out and spread, hitting the world economy hard.

　　After the outbreak of the COVID-19 epidemic, the United States and the West frantically printed money to stimulate the economy, causing severe inflation. In response to inflation, they raised interest rates aggressively, which led to the sharp depreciation of currencies in many countries, the surge in debt burden, a large outflow of funds, and the economy was in trouble.

　　China, on the other hand, has injected confidence and impetus into the recovery of the global economy after the epidemic with the sustained recovery of domestic consumption, efficient industrial system and orderly opening up.

　　Tesla, Siemens, Volkswagen, Citigroup … … Just as some politicians in the United States and the West are clamoring for "de-risk", a number of well-known multinational companies have sent executives to visit China to promote capital increase, production expansion and business opportunities. In the eyes of multinational companies and most countries, the development of China is not a risk, but a huge opportunity; Exchanges and cooperation with China have never been a risk, but a win-win situation and progress.

　　No matter how it is packaged, the so-called "de-risk" of some politicians in the United States and the West will eventually lead to opportunities, cooperation, stability and development. "De-risk" will also end in failure like "decoupling theory". Those politicians who are addicted to China’s paranoia and cannot extricate themselves will eventually be satirized by reality. History will eventually prove that political lies can’t deceive the world, nor can they stop the surging tide of globalization. (Note writers: Wei Jianhua, Xu Chao, Liu Zan; Participating reporters: Deng Qian, Yu Maofeng, Song Ying, Zhu Ruiqing, Xiong Maoling, Huang Zemin, Shan Weiyi, Wang Zhongyi, Liu Pinran)

According to media reports in Taiwan, China, the first ship of Taiwan’s "Tajiang" class missile patrol ship "Tajiang" was delivered ahead of schedule on July 27th.

Taiwan’s "Central News Agency" reported that Taiwan’s defense department said that in order to cope with the frequent cruises of PLA military aircraft, it was originally planned to complete three "Tajiang" ships in 2025. After coordinating with Longde Shipyard, it was changed to complete the operational evaluation this year and complete six ships by 2023. At present, one can be delivered soon, so the progress is ahead of schedule.

Taiwanese media said that the "Tajiang" class patrol ship is the "carrier killer" of the Taiwan military, and it is an effective asymmetric combat force for the Taiwan military to "defend and stick to it".

So, what is the combat power of the "Tajiang" class patrol ship? Is the title of "aircraft carrier killer" worthy of the name?

The first ship of "Tajiang" class missile patrol ship "Tajiang".

From "Tuojiang" to "Tajiang"

The "Tajiang" class is an upgraded version of the "Tuojiang" class ship, and the first ship of the "Tuojiang" class "Tuojiang" was delivered in December 2014. The name "Tuojiang" is to commemorate the gunboat "Tuojiang" which was destroyed and scrapped by the People’s Liberation Army in the naval battle of Liaoluowan on September 2, 1958 (Tuojiang is a tributary of the upper reaches of the Yangtze River in Sichuan).

"Tuojiang" is 60.4 meters long and has a full displacement of about 600 tons. It is a wave-piercing catamaran with stealth design, and its maximum speed can reach 38 knots. Although the "Tuojiang" has a displacement of only about 600 tons, it has piled up a large number of weapons, including a MK-75 76 mm naval gun, a MK-15 "dense array" near defense system, two MK-32 triple-mounted 324 mm torpedo launchers, four 12.7 mm machine guns, and eight anti-ship missiles of Xiongfeng 2 and Xiongfeng 3. It can be said that

However, the "Tuojiang", which has high hopes, has exposed some problems in sea trial and use, such as insufficient buoyancy, excessive vibration during navigation and greatly reduced speed. It has been rumored many times that the towed array sonar of "Tuojiang" is affected by the high vibration and noise generated by the hull during navigation. Although the Taiwan navy denied it many times, the subsequent mass-produced "Tajiang" class missile patrol ship cancelled the towed array sonar and anti-submarine torpedo launcher.

During the sea trial and use, the "Tuojiang" exposed some problems, such as insufficient buoyancy, excessive vibration during navigation, and greatly reduced speed.

As a mass production type of the "Tuojiang" class missile patrol ship, the "Tajiang" started construction at Longde Shipyard on May 24, 2019 and was launched on December 25, 2020. The word "Tower" in the name of the ship "Tajiang" is taken from Wataxi in Taitung County and matched with the word "Jiang" in the naming pattern of Taiwan patrol ships, which is another manifestation of Democratic Progressive Party authorities’ "going to China".

Compared with the "Tuojiang", the length of the "Tajiang" class is increased to 65 meters, the width is increased to 14.8 meters, the full-load displacement is increased to 685 tons, the draft is 2.1 meters, and the endurance is reduced from about 2,000 nautical miles of the "Tuojiang" to about 1,800 nautical miles. Structurally, the "Tajiang" class changed the bottom of the two pieces of the hull under the waterline of the "Tuojiang" from V-shape to U-shape, and adjusted the shape of the bridge, cab, mast, etc., and moved the position of the smoke outlet from the vicinity of the outboard waterline on both sides to two meters above the inboard waterline to enhance concealment.

In terms of weapons and equipment, there are many changes in the Tajiang class compared with the Tuojiang class: the anti-submarine torpedo launcher is cancelled, the number of Xiongfeng 2 and Xiongfeng 3 anti-ship missiles is reduced to 8 and 4 respectively, and 16 Haijian 2 medium-range ship-to-air missiles and their supporting CS/MPQ-90 X-band single-sided phased array radar are added.

In addition, Taiwan Province Coast Guard also plans to build 12 "Anping" class patrol ships based on "Tuojiang". The size of "Anping" class patrol ship is larger than that of "Tuojiang", and the full-load displacement is increased to about 700 tons. Because it is not equipped with anti-ship missiles, its speed can reach more than 44 knots. However, it should be noted that "Anping" class patrol ship has reserved missile launching cabin and interface, which can be equipped with "Xiongfeng" 2 and "Xiongfeng" 3 anti-ship missiles, "dense array" near defense system and other weapons and related systems in wartime, and the peacetime and wartime conversion can be completed within 24 hours. Two "Anping" class patrol ships have been delivered at present.

Although the displacement is only over 600 tons, the "Tajiang" class has piled up a large number of weapons, including 76 mm naval guns, anti-ship missiles, ship-to-air missiles, near-defense guns and machine guns.

Embarrassed "carrier killer"

Objectively speaking, the "Tajiang" class has indeed solved some problems existing in the "Tuojiang", but there are still many problems due to its backward design concept and insufficient capacity.

It seems unnecessary for Taiwan navy to adopt the design of wave-piercing catamaran. Although the wave-piercing catamaran has the advantages of good seaworthiness, reducing wave-making resistance and facilitating the layout of superstructure, it also has the disadvantages of heavy structural weight, which is not conducive to large-scale and high lateral stability.

First of all, the two hulls and superstructure of the wave-piercing catamaran are more complicated than the traditional monohull ship with the same tonnage, which requires more materials and has a much larger structural weight. In order to reduce weight, catamarans are mostly made of aluminum alloy, and the "Tuojiang" and "Tajiang" missile patrol ships are no exception, which will inevitably lead to rising procurement and use costs. For example, it will cost more than NT$ 5 billion (about RMB 1.156 billion) to purchase a "Tajiang" missile patrol ship.

Secondly, the connection structure between the two pieces of the wave-piercing catamaran is complicated. When the distance between the two pieces is large, the connection structure must be made of steel with good structural strength, which will inevitably increase the structural weight, reduce the effective load, reduce the economy and limit its large-scale development.

The "Tajiang" class can carry up to 16 anti-ship missiles with firepower comparable to destroyers.

Finally, the wave-piercing catamaran has a larger width and higher lateral stability, but when the sea conditions are higher, it produces a larger lateral stability moment and a higher rocking frequency, which leads to a decline in seaworthiness. At the same time, the pitching of the wave-piercing catamaran has not been alleviated. According to Taiwan media reports, when the "Tuojiang" was seaworthy, the crew vomited more seriously because of its strong pitching.

At present, what the Taiwan Navy urgently needs is to be able to replace the old Jinjiang class missile patrol ship. After the "Jinjiang" class is completely retired, the complicated patrol tasks can only be undertaken by Taiwan naval frigates, which will consume its limited service life faster. "Jinjiang" class is equipped with sonar, anti-submarine torpedo and deep-water bomb, which has basic anti-submarine capability, while "Tajiang" class has no anti-submarine capability at all.

It can be seen that the real purpose of Taiwan Province’s construction of the "Tajiang" class missile patrol ship is not to replace the "Jinjiang" class as stipulated in the plan, but to develop an anti-ship missile launching platform, strengthen the overall anti-ship capability of its navy, and enhance its so-called "rejecting reunification by force" capability. Some Taiwan Province media even refer to the "Tajiang" class as an "aircraft carrier killer", but this is just wishful thinking.

On the one hand, although the "Tajiang" class can carry up to 16 anti-ship missiles, and its firepower is comparable to that of destroyers, it also occupies the hull space and can only install simple electronic equipment, which leads to its extreme dependence on friendly and neighboring combat platforms and combat information networks, and its independent combat capability is extremely weak. In the face of systematic air and sea strikes, friendly and neighboring combat platforms and combat information networks are easily broken one by one, and its lack of independent combat capability is more like a "large missile boat". Moreover, the equipped "Xiongfeng" 3 supersonic anti-ship missile claims to have a range of 400 kilometers, but it can only be achieved when the flying height exceeds 15,000 meters, and it is easy to be intercepted. If low-altitude trajectory is adopted, the range is only about 150 kilometers.

On the other hand, the self-defense ability of "Tajiang" class is insufficient. Taiwan authorities say that these two-stage missile patrol ships have achieved stealth, but Taiwan Province has not accumulated much stealth technology, and the actual effect is in doubt. In terms of air defense, the ship is equipped with a "dense array" near-defense "Haijian" 2 ship-to-air missile. The maximum range of the missile is about 30 kilometers, and the inclined fixed launch box is adopted. This design not only limits the launch angle of the missile, but also has a small bomb load. Although the "Tajiang" class has a certain self-defense capability, if the launch platform of the other anti-ship missile launches a saturation attack 30 kilometers away, the "Tajiang" class will be overwhelmed and easily overwhelmed by the other anti-ship missile. Newer weapons such as the "Tajiang" class must be the focus of attention in wartime. Ballistic missiles and various types of anti-ship missiles are the nightmare of the "Tajiang" class, and there is almost no chance to attack the opponent’s aircraft carrier. The title of "aircraft carrier killer" is not worthy of the name.

Haijian 2 ship-to-air missile is improved from Tianjian 2 air-to-air missile.

The facade of the "national ship made in China" plan?

The "Tajiang" class is a part of the so-called "national ship-building" plan in Taiwan, China, which can be said to be ambitious. The Taiwan military and the coast guard will jointly build 238 ships of various types.

This huge shipbuilding plan, regardless of whether the funds are sufficient, is beyond the capacity of Taiwan Province’s shrinking shipbuilding industry. For example, in the famous "Qingfu Cheating Case", Qingfu Shipbuilding Co., Ltd. built a civilian ship in its early years, and won the contract for six mine-hunting ships of the Taiwan military in 2014. It plans to complete the order by the so-called "national ship made in China". Qingfu Company, while buying mine hunting equipment system from the United States, entrusted Italy to build the first ship, and was busy transferring assets and obtaining loans, and was finally discovered, which also involved people from Taiwan, government and military circles. The disadvantages of Taiwan Province shipbuilding industry can be seen from this. The Budget Center of Taiwan’s legislature thinks that such a huge shipbuilding scale is really inconsistent with Taiwan Province’s actual shipbuilding capacity.

The "Haijian" 2 ship-to-air missile adopts an inclined fixed launch box, and its firing range is limited.

In addition to the sluggish shipbuilding industry, the research and development capabilities of related supporting military industries are also declining. For example, Haijian-2 ship-to-air missile, which was developed by Chinese Academy of Sciences in 1999, claimed to have obtained two key technologies related to the vertical launch of ship-to-air missile, namely missile thrust vector system and "cold launch" technology. However, until 2007, Taiwan’s "Chinese Academy of Sciences" showed the backward inclined fixed launch box, and the vertical launch system has not been followed. Now it can only turn to the United States. In 2019, "Haijian" 2 conducted the first live-fire shooting test on land using the purchased American MK-41 vertical launching system.

If we can find ways to make up for the decline in R&D and construction capacity, then the backwardness of the concepts of Taiwan’s political and military circles, scientific research departments and shipbuilding industry is the biggest shortcoming that it cannot make up for. Let’s take the Haijian 2 missile as an example. The Taiwan military plans to install Haijian 2 on those old frigates to enhance their air defense capabilities. However, due to the hull structure, internal space and missile length, some frigates are not suitable for installing vertical launch systems, so the inclined fixed launch box can also be used as a way to enhance air defense capabilities. It is such a simple technical problem, but the Taiwan military is divided into "inclined launch box faction" and "vertical launch system faction". The two sides do not give in to each other, and even the top defense department needs to come forward to reconcile and compromise. In the 21st century, when the vertical launching system is very popular, Taiwan’s Chinese Academy of Sciences is still thinking about the inclined fixed launching box, and even developed the so-called "integrated shell oblique launching frame", that is, the inclined fixed launching box considering the stealth problem, in order not to destroy the stealth shape of the ship.

The "Tajiang" class missile patrol ship is a well-run project in the so-called "national ship made in China" plan of the Taiwan authorities, but it also exposes that Taiwan Province’s ship-building ability, technology and concept are completely backward, and it is difficult to hold up the so-called "national ship made in China" facade.