Royal Thai Air Force To Procure New Weapons And Armanents

[monkeyclub]

Did I miss something, The Thai "government" wants to spend money on "defending the nation"

!!!!!! !!!!!!!

[ilyushin]

RTAF needs new medium and large transport aircraft, VIP jet, ground attack turboprops, helicopters, UAV system, EW, FLIR , spares and various missle systems.

Fighters are mid life upgrades fro the F16s and the F5s still have lots of support. They could use some additional trainers too.

[bonobo]

RTAF needs new medium and large transport aircraft, VIP jet, ground attack turboprops, helicopters, UAV system, EW, FLIR , spares and various missle systems.

Fighters are mid life upgrades fro the F16s and the F5s still have lots of support. They could use some additional trainers too.

Seems to me that you have it right.  Upgrades for the fighters should be enough. Helicopters, UAV's, and the like would seem to me to be far better and useful upgrades.  

[nick2k]

They should have, like they discussed a few years ago, buy the SAAB 39. A small but agile fighter of the third generation of jet fighters,instead of buying American planes that are really not suited for their needs.

A Typhoon or a F-22 would be a serious overkill. Such anvanced planes are not needed in this region.

The Chech Republic, Hungary, and South Africa has already bought the SAAB.

It would be a perfect solution for Thailand's needs.

serious overkill? such advanced planes are not needed in this region?

..why don't you tell that to malaysia, vietnam, indonesia, and singapore?

did you know that malaysia has like 18 of those su-30's on order? in fact, malaysia is receiving 6 of them next month.

http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthrea...5240&page=5

[ilyushin]

RTAF Aircraft in Commission

Fighter/Attacker

F-16 A/B/ADF (59 + 2 frames)

F-5 A/B/E/F (46) (F-5 A have retired from the fleet)

L-39 ZA/ART (34)

Alpha Jet (20, only 19 in use after a crash)

AU-23 A (21) [1] ("Peacemaker", turboprop)

Transportation

C-130 H/H-30 (12)

BT-67 (8) (Transport aircraft used for aerial firefighting and cloud seeding; turboprop; remanufactured DC-3 by Basler Turbo Conversions)One airplane written-off in a crash in August 2006.

N22B (19) (GAF N22B "Nomad"; patrol and surveillance)Around 6 airplanes still flying.

G222 (3) Manufactured by Alenia, SPA (3 further airplanes of this type are in store at Don Mueang RTAFB and it is highly unlikely they will fly again).The new version,the C-27J was demostrated to the RTAF at Don Mueang recently.

BAE 748 (5) (One airplane AOG))

Boeing B737-2Z6(1) (For Royal Flight)(stored at Don Mueang RTAFB).

Boeing B737-4Z6 (1) (For Royal Flight)

Boeing 737-8Z6 (1) (For Royal Flight) will delivery in OCT 2006.First flew in May 2006,however still not delivered by April 2007.

Airbus A310-324 (1) (For Royal Flight)

Airbus A319-115X CJ (1) (For Government Business)Referred to by cynics as the Billion Baht Airbus.was procured for the exclusive use of the former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra.

Reconnaissance

Lear Jet 35A (2, only one in use after a crash)

IAI201 (3)At least one Arava is now stored

Helicopter

UH-1 Iroquois (20)

Bell-412 SP (3) For Royal Flight

Training

CT-4E (20)24 were delivered,3 known to have crashed.

Pilatus PC-9 (23)

They also deployed a drone system for testing recently. Suggest a medium size, 12 hour endurance system with multi-sensors day/night.

www.rtaf.mi.th and http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/wor.../rtaf-intro.htm for more information.

Edited April 13, 2007 by ilyushin

[mrbojangles]

Isn't this the Eurofighter?

To be precise, it is the Eurofighter Typhoon. 'Eurofighter' is the programme's name, Typhoon is the type's designation.

You are quite correct Levent.

Is the Typhoon in the running for this contract? I haven't read the full thread as i got fed up of reading all the bickering.

[nick2k]

just read this article about thailand deciding on making their own missiles.

http://www.spacewar.com/missilenews.html

[Bagwan]

As long as Malaysia, Singapore, and particularly Burma keep buying planes and pugrading their militaries, Thais will have to keep up. It takes years, you can't just order a bunch of modern jets online and fly them tomorrow.

Insanity. Stop the world I want to get off. Meanwhile roads, hospitals, education, care for the elderly, decent communication systems, an effective and honest police force can stay on the back burner. What an indictment of the mess the world, not only Thailand, is in.

[Levent]

Is the Typhoon in the running for this contract? I haven't read the full thread as i got fed up of reading all the bickering.

As far as I know, the Typhoon is not among the shortlisted aircraft for the RTAF's contract. This jet is simply way too expensive; the newest F-16's or F-18's, the JAS-39 Gripen, the Dassault Rafale or indeed the Russian fighters mentioned before are much cheaper and can do more than enough for what Thailand needs them for.

The Eurofighter Typhoon suffers from what could be called the EADS-syndrome. It was a revolutionary weapons platform when launched (many, many years ago...) but by the time it finally flew and went into production, the technology utilised was not that new anymore. While a pan-European project like this was a nice idea in the first place, having four countries involved in one project only delayed the whole thing (trying to resolve disputes which in many cases were linked to national interests) and increased development and production costs - hence the very high price that has to be paid for the jet now. Obviously the Saudis have more than enough dosh!

[nick2k]

As long as Malaysia, Singapore, and particularly Burma keep buying planes and pugrading their militaries, Thais will have to keep up. It takes years, you can't just order a bunch of modern jets online and fly them tomorrow.

Insanity. Stop the world I want to get off. Meanwhile roads, hospitals, education, care for the elderly, decent communication systems, an effective and honest police force can stay on the back burner. What an indictment of the mess the world, not only Thailand, is in.

after thinking about it a little, I follow your train of thought. and yes, I have to agree with you, it is insane.

lately, I have been reading up on military forums just out of curiosity. not that I want to be an expert in the stuff. but somebody on another string said that I didn't know diddily about military subjects. so, I did the research. what I found out is somewhat disturbing, on many of these military forums, you have people who discuss the various missiles, tanks, jets, etc, as if they are toys. in my mind, I think they look at the various killing machines in the context of a computer game.

my "dick" is bigger than your "dick". quote, "I wonder how an eu-30 will stack up against a f22a?"

the big question that hits you is - will this mental set ever change? my guess is sadly - no.

WW3 is just around the corner.

[cdnvic]

WW3 is just around the corner.

Been hearing that hyperbole since the end of WW2.

Just chicken little-ism

[Bagwan]

WW3 is just around the corner.

Been hearing that hyperbole since the end of WW2.

Just chicken little-ism

There must be at least 50 minor conflicts not to mention a few major ones, going on right now. Who needs WW3?

[Levent]

lately, I have been reading up on military forums just out of curiosity. not that I want to be an expert in the stuff. but somebody on another string said that I didn't know diddily about military subjects. so, I did the research. what I found out is somewhat disturbing, on many of these military forums, you have people who discuss the various missiles, tanks, jets, etc, as if they are toys. in my mind, I think they look at the various killing machines in the context of a computer game.

the big question that hits you is - will this mental set ever change? my guess is sadly - no.

WW3 is just around the corner.

No matter how you look at it, in the end the warfare business is just like any other business - it all boils down to money and power. The US and the Soviet Union brought the world VERY close to a nuclear war in the 1960's and continued to build up their weapons ever since, till mid-1980's. With what those two countries had in stock, they could have destroyed the world several times over. It was bloody insane, there is no other way to put it.

As long as countries regard each other as being hostile, they will continue buying new war toys and try to have newer, better and more powerful jets, missiles, tanks and whatever else than the other party.

I am very interested in military aviation and the sheer power and speed of military aircraft, and I love visiting air shows to experience the sounds and sights of fighter jet displays. But I do not support the military cat-and-mouse game that's being played. But then, what to do about it? As another poster said before, of course we all know that the money could/should be spent on education, infrastructure and whatever else is needed by the country's people. Most probably the new, multi-million dollar war toys will never be used in real combat anyway - instead, many more millions will be spent on training the crews and keeping them current, as well as war games with friendly nations.

[bonobo]

No matter how you look at it, in the end the warfare business is just like any other business - it all boils down to money and power. The US and the Soviet Union brought the world VERY close to a nuclear war in the 1960's and continued to build up their weapons ever since, till mid-1980's. With what those two countries had in stock, they could have destroyed the world several times over. It was bloody insane, there is no other way to put it.

As long as countries regard each other as being hostile, they will continue buying new war toys and try to have newer, better and more powerful jets, missiles, tanks and whatever else than the other party.

I am very interested in military aviation and the sheer power and speed of military aircraft, and I love visiting air shows to experience the sounds and sights of fighter jet displays. But I do not support the military cat-and-mouse game that's being played. But then, what to do about it? As another poster said before, of course we all know that the money could/should be spent on education, infrastructure and whatever else is needed by the country's people. Most probably the new, multi-million dollar war toys will never be used in real combat anyway - instead, many more millions will be spent on training the crews and keeping them current, as well as war games with friendly nations.

People like to post about the wastefulness of military spending.  The arms buildup of the West and the Soviet Union has become the boggie-boy of many theorists, citing the waste in resources.  However, for a world which has been in major conflicts throughout history, the advent of nuclear weapons has stopped all major conflicts.  MADD does seem to work, although an accident would be catastrophic.

Since WWII, how many times have modern, industrialized nations gone to war?  Argentina attacking the Falklands?  That is one of the few times when modern weapons systems have gone up against each other.  The Arabs against Israel?  Modern tank warfare, to be sure, but the Arabs had no air superiority.

Most times, it has been a "have" versus a "have not."  The US in Vietnam.  The Soviets in Afghanistan. Iraq in Kuwait.  If Kuwait had spent part of its oil cash on a modern, effective military, especialy and air force, do you think Saddam would have invaded? Any investment they made in a military would have been paid back by prevetning the huge damage to the nation and its economy.

So I don't think it is that bad a thing that Thailand is going to upgrade its military to keep up with its neighbors.  Sure, Thailand needs lots of improvements.  Any nation does.  But if a moderately robust military, a defensive military, can keep its neighbors from deciding to move into Thai territory, then it is a long-term savings.  Not just in money, but in human lives.

Edited April 15, 2007 by bonobo