Navy chief defends purchase of amphibious vessel from China

By THE NATION

 

Admiral Luechai Ruddit

 

In defending the Royal Thai Navy's purchase of an amphibious landing ship from China, Commander Admiral Luechai Ruddit said the deal was transparent, and the large ship could be used for civilian purposes when needed.

 

He said the Navy's four ships of the same category had been decommissioned and a replacement was urgently needed. He added purchase of the Chinese-made vessel was decided but the Navy has now been criticised for it, after the purchase was announced to the media and the public.

 

The admiral said a ship of this size, at 20,000-tonne displacement, would be useful in rescue and humanitarian missions, apart from military operations.

 

He said the Bt6.1 billion price tag was reasonable, given its size and specifications, which he declined to elaborate.

 

Luechai also refused to respond to a question whether this purchase would lead to orders for submarines from China in the future.

 

Source: https://www.nationthailand.com/news/30376177

 

-- © Copyright The Nation Thailand 2019-09-13

Follow Thaivisa on LINE for breaking Thailand news and visa info

When it would be the RTN chief using the word 'amphibious' for that vessel / landing ship, and not just an ill informed Nation journo, there might be a question rising about the Admiral's 'qualification', as it is not, at all, 'amphibious', as it can impossibly move out of the water, on land! (Dis-)embark means of transportation by land and water, or vice-versa, no doubt, ...but in itself, no, by no means (as opposed to, smaller, units built by the USA, Russia, China f.i., which are able, though in a restricted way, to move out of the sea on land, and vice-versa).

So, ring-ring, The Nation, what will it be?

 

14 minutes ago, bangrak said:

When it would be the RTN chief using the word 'amphibious' for that vessel / landing ship, and not just an ill informed Nation journo, there might be a question rising about the Admiral's 'qualification', as it is not, at all, 'amphibious', as it can impossibly move out of the water, on land! (Dis-)embark means of transportation by land and water, or vice-versa, no doubt, ...but in itself, no, by no means (as opposed to, smaller, units built by the USA, Russia, China f.i., which are able, though in a restricted way, to move out of the sea on land, and vice-versa).

So, ring-ring, The Nation, what will it be?

its an amphibious assault ship,

a landing platform dock (LPD)

its mission is to be the platform from which to launch the actual landing crafts.

i presume this will be the new flagship of RTN, replacing the small jump carrier

Edited September 13, 20196 yr by brokenbone

I'm trying to work out quite why Thailand needs a ship designed to land troops from the sea on "distant shores". Given that their aircaft carrier has no aircraft, they must be planning on doing so without air support, and only very limited naval gunfire support - a bit suicidal really!

6 minutes ago, JAG said:

I'm trying to work out quite why Thailand needs a ship designed to land troops from the sea on "distant shores". Given that their aircaft carrier has no aircraft, they must be planning on doing so without air support, and only very limited naval gunfire support - a bit suicidal really!

it has extensive command and control features,

and i presume operating rooms,

this will undoubtedly replace the jump carrier as the flagship.

if i were to guess, the possible distant shores would be like hunting pirates like off somalia, or provide evacuation & medical care in tsunami like events

Edited September 13, 20196 yr by brokenbone

7 minutes ago, brokenbone said:

 

its an amphibious assault ship,

a landing platform dock (LPD)

its mission is to be the platform from which to launch the actual landing crafts.

i presume this will be the new flagship of RTN, replacing the small jump carrier

Agreed, ...clearly not an 'amphibious vessel', as wrongly stated, by ...? 'Lost in translation', maybe.

13 minutes ago, bangrak said:

When it would be the RTN chief using the word 'amphibious' for that vessel / landing ship, and not just an ill informed Nation journo, there might be a question rising about the Admiral's 'qualification', as it is not, at all, 'amphibious', as it can impossibly move out of the water, on land! (Dis-)embark means of transportation by land and water, or vice-versa, no doubt, ...but in itself, no, by no means (as opposed to, smaller, units built by the USA, Russia, China f.i., which are able, though in a restricted way, to move out of the sea on land, and vice-versa).

So, ring-ring, The Nation, what will it be?

These types of ships are referred as "Amphibs" and more colloquialy in the US Navy as "The Gator Navy".  This LPD is capable of launching and recovering LCACs (which I don't think RTN has), and conventional floating stock by flooding the well deck.  

 

 

I just want to know.... 

 

Is the abovementioned LPD going to be the one to tow the carrier?

 

Or is the carrier going to be the one to tow the LPD?   

5 minutes ago, brokenbone said:

it has extensive command and control features,

and i presume operating rooms,

this will undoubtedly replace the jump carrier as the flagship.

if i were to guess, the possible distant shores would be like hunting pirates like off somalia, or provide evacuation & medical care in tsunami like events

Let's hope that by the time there is another tsunami (...in the Indian Ocean / Andaman sea, at probably 60 to 80 hours of navigation, only, from where the vessel will be at anchor, at the back of the Gulf of Thailand), this chinese steel vessel will have long become a rusty dismantling project on some western asian specialised wharf...

As for your example implying the brave(?) and well trained(?) Thai military could be involved around Somalia or so, let them maybe first get a bloody nose and some experience with the Malacca strait pirates, and doing so avoid scores of kids returning home in bodybags... Of all places, Somalia, when you came back from there with just a 'broken bone' you were damn lucky...!

23 minutes ago, JAG said:

I'm trying to work out quite why Thailand needs a ship designed to land troops from the sea on "distant shores". Given that their aircaft carrier has no aircraft, they must be planning on doing so without air support, and only very limited naval gunfire support - a bit suicidal really!

Don't tell the Thai military (anything), but that might have been less wasted taxpayers' money to purchase some russian or chinese copies of the Harrier, a few STOL US Ospreys, and a couple of anti-submarine helicopters, ...instead of old gen, overclassed, spyware loaded, chinese junk submarines, but, let me guess, there were interesting 'special arrangements' outside the contract, ...and the RTN had already organised a submariners school, buildings for everything, can't let all that be wasted...

18 minutes ago, bangrak said:

Agreed, ...clearly not an 'amphibious vessel', as wrongly stated, by ...? 'Lost in translation', maybe.

In Naval lingo, amphibious ship is understood to mean those designed to carry out and support amphibious warfare operations. 

 

Below is the old skool LST, flat bottom up front so it was able to get up close, open its funky bow and lower a ramp to the beach.  Horrible ships to ride on in any significant sea state I was told.  I was parked next to one of the last in the US Navy for a few months; it was sold and sent to the Chilean Navy. 

 

Edited September 13, 20196 yr by 55Jay

Humanitarian missions where could this possibly be he's an admiral of the wrong navy ????

transparent = we have no fear intelligent people will get to challenge it...

how has Thailand made so many enemies lately within and without their borders that they need to be so active defending themselves?

More military spending and soon the wishes of the  military will want to join the laser space program, the debt incurred secures the long long repayments for generations.

Gluttony that is not needed.

 

I hope they didn't decommission the LPD they got from Singapore in 2011. HTMS Angthong

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endurance-class_landing_platform_dock

 

The Muslims of the south may one day take to the seas. Best to be well equipped and please the overlord.

so the guy says the price was okay given the specs then when they ask for the specs he refuses to tell them?  

Seems they could have used the money for education & medical equipment for rural hospitals.

Who are they worried about the is going to attack thailand that they need a landing craft, a submarine and 60 Stryker troop carriers ?????

14 hours ago, snoop1130 said:

He added purchase of the Chinese-made vessel was decided but the Navy has now been criticised for it, after the purchase was announced to the media and the public.

In bed with china.  The slow death of Thailand.  Yep, the Thai's should be doing more than criticizing.   

14 hours ago, snoop1130 said:

The admiral said a ship of this size, at 20,000-tonne displacement, would be useful in rescue and humanitarian missions, apart from military operations.

 

Those types of actions require well maintained vessels and skilled people.  

14 hours ago, snoop1130 said:

He said the Bt6.1 billion price tag was reasonable, given its size and specifications, which he declined to elaborate.

The commissions are all they think about.  He declined because... he did not know the answer.  

Aren't there military type vessels (as well as aircraft and motor vehicles) dedicated to emergency services such as for fires, floods, tropical depressions, earthquakes, tsunamis? Things like floating desalination ships and hospital ships that would be in high demand during such an event? Wouldn't it be better to purchase this equipment and train personnel for those situations rather than buying ships to launch an invasion of Tahiti or some place the Thai Navy couldn't navigate to anyway? 

15 hours ago, snoop1130 said:

The admiral said a ship of this size, at 20,000-tonne displacement, would be useful in rescue and humanitarian missions, apart from military operations.

What would those "military operations" be?   Total waste of money, apart for those who get the backhander...

9 hours ago, losworld said:

so the guy says the price was okay given the specs then when they ask for the specs he refuses to tell them?  

Seems that how the Thai navy operates.

China refused to provide the specs to the Thai navy for the six submarines that the Thai navy was purchasing.

'the Bt6.1 billion price tag was reasonable, given its size and specifications'

The navy's first purchase of a total of six Chinese Yuan Class S26T submarine was 13.5 billion baht.

It could have cut back the purchase of one submarine and bought two amphibious landing ships from China. That would raise to three such ships for Thailand - one for each of the two coastlines with a third in reserve. It could also lend the third ship to international support without weakening Thailand's own security needs.

To pay for this?  Keep pounding down the USD and western currencies.  And pump up the Chinese Yuan.  That also brings in more Chinese tourists (their ultimate goal).  Go ahead Baht apologists--have some fun with this.

Just Shut up, you may be putting in danger the real reason for cuddling with the Chinese Navy, their USELESS SUBMARINES like children's toys in a bathtub, the Navy has been lusting over for OH so long.

Easier to land troops on Phuket than drive all the military vehicles across the bridge. which could be easily blocked.

2 hours ago, Isaan sailor said:

To pay for this?  Keep pounding down the USD and western currencies.  And pump up the Chinese Yuan.  That also brings in more Chinese tourists (their ultimate goal).  Go ahead Baht apologists--have some fun with this.

you think thai economy is so large so it influence

USD & euro ?

hahhahahhahhahahhah

16 hours ago, brokenbone said:

 

its an amphibious assault ship,

a landing platform dock (LPD)

its mission is to be the platform from which to launch the actual landing crafts.

i presume this will be the new flagship of RTN, replacing the small jump carrier

Which, more importantly, could be converted at a fraction of the cost and with a little extra training and ingenuity - would serve the same purpose - rather than an expensive 'new' toy from China on borrowed money that would be berthed outboard of the Chakri N. and inboard of at least one submarine that would never go to sea, assuming that the other will sink shortly after leaving harbour!

19 hours ago, JAG said:

I'm trying to work out quite why Thailand needs a ship designed to land troops from the sea on "distant shores". Given that their aircaft carrier has no aircraft, they must be planning on doing so without air support, and only very limited naval gunfire support - a bit suicidal really!

Perfect for landing or loading contraband goods or human. 

19 hours ago, JAG said:

I'm trying to work out quite why Thailand needs a ship designed to land troops from the sea on "distant shores". Given that their aircaft carrier has no aircraft, they must be planning on doing so without air support, and only very limited naval gunfire support - a bit suicidal really!

Possibly the distant shores of the Chao Praya