Jai Dee Posted April 10, 2007 Share Posted April 10, 2007 Royal Thai Air Force to procure new weapons and armanents The Commander in Chief of the Royal Thai Air Force affirmed that the air force's weaponry and armanents would be boosted in order to ensure the nation's security. On the occasion of Royal Thai Air Force Day yesterday, the Commander in Chief of the Royal Thai Air Force, Air Chief Marshal Chalit Pugphasuk (ชลิต พุกผาสุก), hosted a ceremony at the Royal Thai Air Force Memorial to honor airmen and heroes of the air force who fell in the line of duty. Air Chief Marshal Chalit said that despite its small size and manpower, the Royal Thai Air Force's duty is to defend the nation. He said that in order to effectively counter threats to national security, the Royal Thai Air Force required constant maintenance of its equipment, decommissioning of old aircraft, and the procurementof advance new technology. Air Chief Marshal Chalit added that the Royal Thai Air Force would develop plans to maintain Thailand's security over waters and on land. Source: Thai National News Bureau Public Relations Department - 10 April 2007 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cdnvic Posted April 10, 2007 Share Posted April 10, 2007 Makes sense to do these big offshore purchases while the baht is high. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ColPyat Posted April 10, 2007 Share Posted April 10, 2007 Makes sense to do these big offshore purchases while the baht is high. Makes even more sense to do all those purchases when the military is in power. Who needs a higher health budget... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
solent01 Posted April 10, 2007 Share Posted April 10, 2007 (edited) You guys have said it, I'll just second it............... so true, so true. But what percent kick back are they on????? And obviously purchased from Bush..... The biggest dealer on the planet, let alone the biggest war monger. Edited April 10, 2007 by solent01 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kerryd Posted April 10, 2007 Share Posted April 10, 2007 I wouldn't bet on the US being the supplier of new toys to the RTAF (as much as they'd like to be). Remember not too long ago Thailand was negotiating with Russia to buy some Mig 27s (and was going to pay for them with frozen chickens !) Then again, that was when Toxin was pulling the strings. I would suspect that all branches of the military will be getting substantial budget boosts in the near future. Gotta look out for their own of course. That is a major problem in any country where the military holds to much power and can exert too much influence on the government, be it democratic or otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bonobo Posted April 10, 2007 Share Posted April 10, 2007 I always felt the MIG buy was merely a smokescreen. The MIG 27 is an inferior plane, and while cheaper to buy, costs much more in the long run. Even when the Soviets were in power, the plane was up and combat-ready less than 50% of the time. With neighbors buying the F16 and even F18, it didn't make sense for the Thais to buy the MIG 27. I would be curious to see just what they are buying and from whom. George Bush is hardly my favorite president, but if the US is selling planes to Thailand, then it has nothing to do with "warmongering," as solent01 posts. it is striclty business, and Bush has very little to say about it. With the Thai-Japan FTA, it is possible, depending on the liscensing agreements between the US companes and the Japanese, that the Thais will buy Japanese-made US planes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cdnvic Posted April 10, 2007 Share Posted April 10, 2007 Actually, though the things you speak of the Mig 27 are correct, the aircraft under consideration were the Su-30 and Mig 35. Both of them far ahead of the Mig 27. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
somtaamgaiyang Posted April 10, 2007 Share Posted April 10, 2007 Royal Thai Air Force to procure new weapons and armanentsThe Commander in Chief of the Royal Thai Air Force affirmed that the air force's weaponry and armanents would be boosted in order to ensure the nation's security. On the occasion of Royal Thai Air Force Day yesterday, the Commander in Chief of the Royal Thai Air Force, Air Chief Marshal Chalit Pugphasuk (ชลิต พุกผาสุก), hosted a ceremony at the Royal Thai Air Force Memorial to honor airmen and heroes of the air force who fell in the line of duty. Air Chief Marshal Chalit said that despite its small size and manpower, the Royal Thai Air Force's duty is to defend the nation. He said that in order to effectively counter threats to national security, the Royal Thai Air Force required constant maintenance of its equipment, decommissioning of old aircraft, and the procurementof advance new technology. Air Chief Marshal Chalit added that the Royal Thai Air Force would develop plans to maintain Thailand's security over waters and on land. Source: Thai National News Bureau Public Relations Department - 10 April 2007 "Honey, can you go and book us two seats to Zurich, we have to take a holiday. And dust of that black Samsonite will you, oh and book First class, we will have a lot of luggage" $$$$$$ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisspursbkk1 Posted April 10, 2007 Share Posted April 10, 2007 Royal Thai Air Force to procure new weapons and armanents The Commander in Chief of the Royal Thai Air Force affirmed that the air force's weaponry and armanents would be boosted in order to ensure the nation's security. On the occasion of Royal Thai Air Force Day yesterday, the Commander in Chief of the Royal Thai Air Force, Air Chief Marshal Chalit Pugphasuk (ชลิต พุกผาสุก), hosted a ceremony at the Royal Thai Air Force Memorial to honor airmen and heroes of the air force who fell in the line of duty. Hi all, sorry if my history isn't that good but what line of duty has Thailand lost its airmen heros? I now about internal pproblems but thats it. Plus i've never understood Victory monument? Please someone inlighten me. Many thanks. Chris. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jai Dee Posted April 10, 2007 Author Share Posted April 10, 2007 Plus i've never understood Victory monument? Please someone inlighten me. Victory Monument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisspursbkk1 Posted April 10, 2007 Share Posted April 10, 2007 Thanks Jai Dee, sounds like a lot of old time back patting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sriracha john Posted April 10, 2007 Share Posted April 10, 2007 Hi all,sorry if my history isn't that good but what line of duty has Thailand lost its airmen heros? I now about internal pproblems but thats it. Plus i've never understood Victory monument? Please someone inlighten me. Many thanks. Chris. Google is an amazing new addition to the Internet Royal Thai Air Force Memorial Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cclub75 Posted April 10, 2007 Share Posted April 10, 2007 The Commander in Chief of the Royal Thai Air Force affirmed that the air force's weaponry and armanents would be boosted in order to ensure the nation's security. Air Chief Marshal Chalit added that the Royal Thai Air Force would develop plans to maintain Thailand's security over waters and on land. Ah ! Hurrah ! Back to real business. Soon, we will have new toys. I propose : www.thainationalsecurity.com It's the new motto. Anyway, for the sake of national security, I'm glad to see that Air Chief Marshal wants to "maintain" Thailand's security. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bonobo Posted April 10, 2007 Share Posted April 10, 2007 Actually, though the things you speak of the Mig 27 are correct, the aircraft under consideration were the Su-30 and Mig 35. Both of them far ahead of the Mig 27. Didn't realize it was the MIG 35. That was only unveiled this year at the India show, and on paper, it could be close to a match to the F-16. I am withhodling judgement on that, though, until the Russians put out some more specs. But if it was the MIG 35, then that is more fuel that it was all a smokescreen. The plane had not even been unveiled yet, and India is the prime target, so I doubt the Thais were really ready to purchse an unknown plane. The SU 30 isn't bad, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PETERTHEEATER Posted April 10, 2007 Share Posted April 10, 2007 I always felt the MIG buy was merely a smokescreen. The MIG 27 is an inferior plane, and while cheaper to buy, costs much more in the long run. Even when the Soviets were in power, the plane was up and combat-ready less than 50% of the time. With neighbors buying the F16 and even F18, it didn't make sense for the Thais to buy the MIG 27. I would be curious to see just what they are buying and from whom. George Bush is hardly my favorite president, but if the US is selling planes to Thailand, then it has nothing to do with "warmongering," as solent01 posts. it is striclty business, and Bush has very little to say about it. With the Thai-Japan FTA, it is possible, depending on the liscensing agreements between the US companes and the Japanese, that the Thais will buy Japanese-made US planes. What is the basis of your claim that the Mig 27 is inferior? Inferior to what? Anyway, the Mig 27 is superceded. Unfortunately, the RTAF do not enjoy unlimited budgets and have had to make do in the past with 'pre-owned' combat aircraft in order to give them something to suit both their operational requirement and the limited budget. Often, that means the USA offer, at a good price, their hardware which is both effective and reliable. But, there are a lot of other players on the sidelines, especially the Russians, who make very rugged aircraft at a competetive price. The starting point is what the RTAF want operationally matched to what is available. If the 'wish list' cannot be met due to budget limitations then they will have to aim lower. I spent over 45 years maintaining military aircraft before my retirement including acting as an advisor to a foreign air force so I will watch with interest the selection and final decision by the RTAF. Good Luck to them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TAWP Posted April 10, 2007 Share Posted April 10, 2007 When was the last time the RTAF was used? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nick2k Posted April 10, 2007 Share Posted April 10, 2007 I just read some literature on the F-22 Raptor. supposely, one F-22 took out 141 F-16s. japan just got a squadron of them stationed nearby. wonder why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cdnvic Posted April 10, 2007 Share Posted April 10, 2007 I just read some literature on the F-22 Raptor. supposely, one F-22 took out 141 F-16s. japan just got a squadron of them stationed nearby. wonder why? Was this in a comic book or something? They carry a maximum of 8 air-to-air missiles and a vulcan cannon with enough rounds for 4.8 seconds of firing so 141 F-16s even in simulation is an extreme exaggeration. Japan has no F-22s. They can't be exported without congressional approval. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nick2k Posted April 10, 2007 Share Posted April 10, 2007 I just read some literature on the F-22 Raptor. supposely, one F-22 took out 141 F-16s. japan just got a squadron of them stationed nearby. wonder why? Was this in a comic book or something? They carry a maximum of 8 air-to-air missiles and a vulcan cannon with enough rounds for 4.8 seconds of firing so 141 F-16s even in simulation is an extreme exaggeration. Japan has no F-22s. They can't be exported without congressional approval. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-22_Raptor I should have said, F22 took out over 141 F16s in testing. but then, you can read it for yourself. I provided the link. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cdnvic Posted April 10, 2007 Share Posted April 10, 2007 I just read some literature on the F-22 Raptor. supposely, one F-22 took out 141 F-16s. japan just got a squadron of them stationed nearby. wonder why? Was this in a comic book or something? They carry a maximum of 8 air-to-air missiles and a vulcan cannon with enough rounds for 4.8 seconds of firing so 141 F-16s even in simulation is an extreme exaggeration. Japan has no F-22s. They can't be exported without congressional approval. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-22_Raptor I should have said, F22 took out over 141 F16s in testing. but then, you can read it for yourself. I provided the link. That article, and info from the US Air Force website says that in an exercise over a five day period of time the 12 F-22 Raptors score was 141 kills. Not one plane taking out 141 in a go. That same article, along with more reliable information elsewhere confirms that Japan has no F-22s. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nick2k Posted April 10, 2007 Share Posted April 10, 2007 I just read some literature on the F-22 Raptor. supposely, one F-22 took out 141 F-16s. japan just got a squadron of them stationed nearby. wonder why? Was this in a comic book or something? They carry a maximum of 8 air-to-air missiles and a vulcan cannon with enough rounds for 4.8 seconds of firing so 141 F-16s even in simulation is an extreme exaggeration. Japan has no F-22s. They can't be exported without congressional approval. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-22_Raptor I should have said, F22 took out over 141 F16s in testing. but then, you can read it for yourself. I provided the link. That article, and info from the US Air Force website says that in an exercise over a five day period of time the 12 F-22 Raptors score was 141 kills. Not one plane taking out 141 in a go. That same article, along with more reliable information elsewhere confirms that Japan has no F-22s. http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?storyID=123041567 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cdnvic Posted April 10, 2007 Share Posted April 10, 2007 I just read some literature on the F-22 Raptor. supposely, one F-22 took out 141 F-16s. japan just got a squadron of them stationed nearby. wonder why? Was this in a comic book or something? They carry a maximum of 8 air-to-air missiles and a vulcan cannon with enough rounds for 4.8 seconds of firing so 141 F-16s even in simulation is an extreme exaggeration. Japan has no F-22s. They can't be exported without congressional approval. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-22_Raptor I should have said, F22 took out over 141 F16s in testing. but then, you can read it for yourself. I provided the link. That article, and info from the US Air Force website says that in an exercise over a five day period of time the 12 F-22 Raptors score was 141 kills. Not one plane taking out 141 in a go. That same article, along with more reliable information elsewhere confirms that Japan has no F-22s. http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?storyID=123041567 That's a US air base, those are US fighters. Are you actually reading this stuff or just glance/paste? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nick2k Posted April 10, 2007 Share Posted April 10, 2007 I just read some literature on the F-22 Raptor. supposely, one F-22 took out 141 F-16s. japan just got a squadron of them stationed nearby. wonder why? Was this in a comic book or something? They carry a maximum of 8 air-to-air missiles and a vulcan cannon with enough rounds for 4.8 seconds of firing so 141 F-16s even in simulation is an extreme exaggeration. Japan has no F-22s. They can't be exported without congressional approval. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-22_Raptor I should have said, F22 took out over 141 F16s in testing. but then, you can read it for yourself. I provided the link. That article, and info from the US Air Force website says that in an exercise over a five day period of time the 12 F-22 Raptors score was 141 kills. Not one plane taking out 141 in a go. That same article, along with more reliable information elsewhere confirms that Japan has no F-22s. http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?storyID=123041567 That's a US air base, those are US fighters. Are you actually reading this stuff or just glance/paste? I am just quoting what I read. a squadron of F22 are stationed in japan. right? as for F22 taking out 141 F16, that's true. right? not a single F22 was taken out. my presenting this info must be bugging you somehow. sorry if that is the case. it's all public knowledge anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TAWP Posted April 10, 2007 Share Posted April 10, 2007 (edited) You wrote that Japan got them stationed [nearby], when it's the US have them stationered in Japan. There is a small difference in the meaning. You are american, so you should have a firm grasp of your own language. Edited April 10, 2007 by TAWP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cdnvic Posted April 10, 2007 Share Posted April 10, 2007 (edited) It's that you are taking something you clearly know nothing about and making up fanciful stories through some bizarre interpretation of something you saw in a wiki. No, it shouldn't bother me when people show off their lack of knowledge, but it does. I'll work on that. Kadena has been a US Air Force base on the island of Okinawa Japan since the second world war. They station some F-22 there. You said that Japan had F-22s which is not true, nor is it stated in anything you've posted links to. A dozen F-22s racked up 141 kills against several different aircraft types over a period of five days. You said a single raptor took them out. That was wrong (not to mention physically impossible), and was clearly stated otherwise if you'd just read the info contained in the links you pasted. Edited April 10, 2007 by cdnvic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nick2k Posted April 10, 2007 Share Posted April 10, 2007 You wrote that Japan got them stationed [nearby], when it's the US have them stationered in Japan.There is a small difference in the meaning. You are american, so you should have a firm grasp of your own language. sorry if my english is not perfect. if you want to get anal, you might want to look at your own english before you start telling me how bad mine is. as for my posting, the point that I was trying to make was that there is a squadron of F22 in japan. but since you and several of others are making such a big issue about it being US and not Japanese planes, it really makes you wonder??? the FACT is - there are F22 in japan and they can take out ANY F16 in existence. FACT is - they can take out ANY planes if you want to believe the reports. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cdnvic Posted April 10, 2007 Share Posted April 10, 2007 (edited) Fact is you blurted out something without checking your facts and got caught. This happens in a public forum, you often run into some people who actually know what they're talking about and by continuing to defend a flawed argument you just wind up looking silly. People can read what you said before, don't go trying to revise it now. Lick your wounds and come back another day Edited April 10, 2007 by cdnvic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TAWP Posted April 10, 2007 Share Posted April 10, 2007 nick2k>> I'm not american nor is English my primary language. You are welcome to point out any spelling mistakes or gramatical errors if it makes you feel better. But atleast I can write my own language proficient enough to have a political debate and not forcing it offtopic. And the F-22 can NOT take out any fighters it will face [without losses]. Stating that shows your utter ignorance on the subject. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nick2k Posted April 10, 2007 Share Posted April 10, 2007 Fact is you blurted out something without checking your facts and got caught. This happens in a public forum, you often run into some people who actually know what they're talking about and by continuing to defend a flawed argument you just wind up looking silly.People can read what you said before, don't go trying to revise it now. Lick your wounds and come back another day boy. you guys are really sensitive. reminds me of when I was a kid and we all argued about whose dad was better. as for licking wounds, you make me laugh. over what? a few words on a forum that doesn't really mean anything? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TAWP Posted April 10, 2007 Share Posted April 10, 2007 (edited) Fact is you blurted out something without checking your facts and got caught. This happens in a public forum, you often run into some people who actually know what they're talking about and by continuing to defend a flawed argument you just wind up looking silly.People can read what you said before, don't go trying to revise it now. Lick your wounds and come back another day boy. you guys are really sensitive. reminds me of when I was a kid and we all argued about whose dad was better. as for licking wounds, you make me laugh. over what? a few words on a forum that doesn't really mean anything? Here is a tip: Stop posting. Edited April 10, 2007 by TAWP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now