[Kapitan]

Originally Posted by U56

I am not sure the USA was wise to drop out of the diesel/aip niche. There appears to be a lucrative world wide market for submarines, seems like an ever increasing number of navies want them. Look at the success of French, Swedish, German and Russian sales of Scorpenes, Type214s, Kilo's etc., even the Chinese are now getting in on the act. The vast majority of these purchasing countries are unable to afford nuclear submarines. The Australians have even ordered a diesel version of a French nuclear design.
The present difficulties of Taiwan's search for a submarine provider would not presently exist if the US had a modern off the shelf model available.

There is a lot more to it than that, for a start you cant simply buy an off the self nuclear submarine it is actually illegal to transfer this technology to any state as per the nuclear non proliferation treaty, and I know your going to say but India has done this with a Russian submarine it hasn't, Russia has leased the submarine to India and upon the expiration of the lease it will be returned to Russia

Different countries have vastly different foreign policies, the USN is about global deployment and policing thus the use of AIP or conventional submarines do not fit within this doctrine, there no way an AIP or Conventional could keep pace with a CVBG over an extended period of time.

Of course there is the argument of littoral waters, well why deploy a vessel with limitations when another boat can offer you more than you will ever need and do the job far better? after all if we listen to Gorshkov "Better is the enemy of good enough."

With France, Germany, Australia, and other diesel-electric and AIP users firmly within the USA’s sphere of influence, is there a need for the US to make diesel-electric or AIP submarines? If the US strategy stated by ET2SN works, then future naval conflicts will be fought closer to the waters of the USA’s allies. They’ll need diesel-electric and AIP subs, but the USN won’t.

ET2SN is correct in his statement the USA will be forever haunted by December 7th 1941 and thus will do anything and everything to keep any threat away from their shores, this means in their doctrine there is no requirement for conventional or AIP boats. (same with the UK)

if you hadnt read the book blind men bluff great book both sides during the cold war surface diesel-electric subs by holding them down when they couldn't charge batteries or draw in air and get rid of the bad air

BMB is a good read that is for sure, and there are plenty of instances where conventional submarines have caused embarrassment to their nation or been forced to the surface.
USS Cochino suffered a battery explosion in the Barents sea, USS Gudgeon was surfaced by the soviets, a Zulu V SSB was forced to surface by USS Grenadier, 3 of the 4 foxtrots sent to Cuba in 1962 were surfaced, Canadian Oberon class counter detected by soviet Delta class and forced out of theatre (1981) there's many !

Interesting points, but they are all afraid to sell any to Taiwan for fear of upsetting their business relations with China. Incidentally the French produce the successful Scorpene submarine, it appears purely for export, as I think all French Navy subs are nuclear, as are the UK. The last UK diesels were the 4 sold to Canada. The Canadians seem to have had a lot of trouble with these, but I am not sure that is the fault of the submarine.

Tiawan will be building their own submarines soon, they had bough 4 old Dutch boats, and in the next 10 - 15 years the current Walrus class will likely start being phased out.

The scorpene is designed primarily as an export boat the Marine National will not likely operate them, like the USN and RN the MN has no need for conventional boats.

The last UK conventional the Upholders now the Victoria class have had issues, bear in mind they had sat idle for some time and Canada does defense on the cheap.
Canada refused to refit them in the UK yards before delivery and instead of heading the advice of the UK government to have them transported via heavy lift ship they decided to have them transit under their own power, the result was the death of a submariner in the HMCS Chicotami.
The deal overall was totally in Canadas favor they got the trainer and four boats for $750m CAD plus shipping and were done a lease to buy scheme interest free.

Canada cried foul play but in reality it was Canadas cost cutting and ignorance that ultimately cause their problems. (and I'm speaking as some one who lives in Both countries)