12 hours ago, Neeranam said:

 

I see nothing wrong with it, this is nothing compared to what the US spend on defense, last year 20 quadrillion baht. 

Why is the US spending baht ?

14 minutes ago, a977 said:

Thailand doesn't need the Generals full stop.

Why's that ?

The revolving door of Governments that come and go in Bangkok should think about the Economic Depression the Country is in first. Millions of poor people, thousands of businesses closed forever, now this, Submarines? There have been many stupid ideas throughout the years by various Leaders, however purchasing submarines has got to one of the stupidest at the top of the Stupid list.

17 hours ago, CGW said:

Could you tell us how deep the water needs to be for submarines? You are obviously knowledgeable about such facts?

Having worked extensively in the GOT I do know the water depths and was of the opinion that the water depth was more than adequate.

Do educate us. ???? 

16 hours ago, dbrenn said:

What depth do these submarines need to operate? The Gulf of Thailand is 50 to 85 metres deep, with the Andaman and South China Seas much deeper. The Yuan class submarine draws 6.7 metres square. 

 

Making more sense now, brains?

 

The ONLY place subs would be effective is off the West Coast (Andaman Sea) as that is the ONLY area where they could submerge deep enough, and have enough room, to avoid detection and be able to escape (or try to).

Modern subs can dive to depths of 300-500 meters. A few can (or have) gone deeper but the average ones seem to operate within the 3-500 meter range.

The Gulf has an average depth of 58 meters. Yes, obviously a sub could submerge there but it could NOT operate there as it would be quickly and easily detected, then sunk.

One trick subs used to use was to dive below the "thermocline" to try and evade enemy sonar. The change in water density reduces the effectiveness of sonar, making it harder to detect a sub, especially if it's running "quiet".

The thermocline in a normal ocean is around the 200 metre depth. No coincidence that most modern subs are designed to dive deeper than that eh ?

Obviously, there wouldn't be any noticeable thermocline in the gulf. The deepest the Gulf goes is a mere 85 meters.
It's likely subs wouldn't dive deeper than 40-45 meters most of the time. The areas where the depth is greater probably aren't that extensive so they couldn't count on spending much time in 70-80 meter depths, which wouldn't make a lot of difference to a sub hunter anyways.

(And no, they don't try to "hug the bottom" or scrap the barnacles off on the rocks like they do in the movies. They'd end up sinking themselves doing BS like that. )

I was posted to a helicopter squadron back in the early 90s. They specialized in hunting/killing subs (no, they didn't have any actual kills as there really hasn't been any sub warfare since WW 2).
The idea of tracking a sub in shallow waters would have had them giggling like schoolgirls. They usually practise against American subs and the few subs (4) that Canada has, in the deep waters and around the islands on the West coast of Canada. (That is, if Canada's sub fleet is ever out of dry dock.)

 

22 minutes ago, Kerryd said:

 

The ONLY place subs would be effective is off the West Coast (Andaman Sea) as that is the ONLY area where they could submerge deep enough, and have enough room, to avoid detection and be able to escape (or try to).

Modern subs can dive to depths of 300-500 meters. A few can (or have) gone deeper but the average ones seem to operate within the 3-500 meter range.

The Gulf has an average depth of 58 meters. Yes, obviously a sub could submerge there but it could NOT operate there as it would be quickly and easily detected, then sunk.

One trick subs used to use was to dive below the "thermocline" to try and evade enemy sonar. The change in water density reduces the effectiveness of sonar, making it harder to detect a sub, especially if it's running "quiet".

The thermocline in a normal ocean is around the 200 metre depth. No coincidence that most modern subs are designed to dive deeper than that eh ?

Obviously, there wouldn't be any noticeable thermocline in the gulf. The deepest the Gulf goes is a mere 85 meters.
It's likely subs wouldn't dive deeper than 40-45 meters most of the time. The areas where the depth is greater probably aren't that extensive so they couldn't count on spending much time in 70-80 meter depths, which wouldn't make a lot of difference to a sub hunter anyways.

(And no, they don't try to "hug the bottom" or scrap the barnacles off on the rocks like they do in the movies. They'd end up sinking themselves doing BS like that. )

I was posted to a helicopter squadron back in the early 90s. They specialized in hunting/killing subs (no, they didn't have any actual kills as there really hasn't been any sub warfare since WW 2).
The idea of tracking a sub in shallow waters would have had them giggling like schoolgirls. They usually practise against American subs and the few subs (4) that Canada has, in the deep waters and around the islands on the West coast of Canada. (That is, if Canada's sub fleet is ever out of dry dock.)

 

Interesting post.

 

The Gulf of Thailand is out then, but then again mostly friendly countries border it - with the possible exception of Cambodia, which has an insignificant navy and air force anyway. Perhaps Thailand's superiority would be a differentiator, so that a submarine in relatively shallow water would be unlikely to come under attack?

 

As you said, the Andaman sea is much deeper, so perhaps the intention is to use submarines to protect from an attack in that direction?

 

 

Unnecessary, if anybody bothers Thailand militarily, the U.S. 7th Fleet will be in the Gulf of Siam in 2 days.

Who is Thailand planning to spy on with them? The surrounding waters are too shallow to provide cover while going out. Defense wise sort of a joke. A single Trident could probably roll up the entire Thai Royal Navy. Sorry about that, generals. A nice ski boat would be a more practical acquisition, IMO.