Thai air force expects update from the US mid-year on F-35 fighter jets

[ozimoron]

Yet another possibility which fits with there being only 2 aircraft proposed is aerial protection. When Zelensky flew to the US his aircraft was escorted by a single F35 together with a spy plane. They may well have a similar scenario is mind. Thailand has an unstable government on at least two of its borders. A single one of these aircraft can provide a very formidable defence against any attack.

Edited January 2, 2023 by ozimoron

[billd766]

13 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

Another possible factor in this purchase decision seems to have escaped many people's short attention. If the Thais have trained pilots on the latest aircraft and the stuffing hits the fan as it looks like it very well might then the US could easily provide more aircraft under a Lend Lease type program.

I don't think so at all.

 

https://breakingdefense.com/2022/10/f-35-might-not-ever-reach-80m-target-again-lockheed-exec-says/

 

The prices are only going upwards and from the link.

 

quote "The COVID-19 pandemic has also had a detrimental effect on F-35 production. Before the pandemic, Lockheed planned to ramp up production to 169 F-35s per year starting in 2022, but disruptions to the global supply chain forced the company to slow down production of the F-35 in 2020. Lockheed has since rebounded, delivering 142 F-35s in 2021 and is on track to hit its new maximum production rate of 156 jets per year in 2023."

 

Thailand has not yet put in their order with Lockheed-Martin and if they ever do it will go on the waiting list.

 

It is not only the trained pilots that Thailand will need but also the fully trained ground staff, facilities pares etc. None of these are cheap or readily available, not to mention the cost to Thailand to provide them.

 

Why should the USA provide lease/end aircraft to Thailand? They don't to any other country, and Thailand under the military, is certainly not a stable country. 

 

The USA is not providing F 35s even to the Ukraine and they are in a real war against Russia.

[ozimoron]

1 minute ago, billd766 said:

I don't think so at all.

 

https://breakingdefense.com/2022/10/f-35-might-not-ever-reach-80m-target-again-lockheed-exec-says/

 

The prices are only going upwards and from the link.

 

quote "The COVID-19 pandemic has also had a detrimental effect on F-35 production. Before the pandemic, Lockheed planned to ramp up production to 169 F-35s per year starting in 2022, but disruptions to the global supply chain forced the company to slow down production of the F-35 in 2020. Lockheed has since rebounded, delivering 142 F-35s in 2021 and is on track to hit its new maximum production rate of 156 jets per year in 2023."

 

Thailand has not yet put in their order with Lockheed-Martin and if they ever do it will go on the waiting list.

 

It is not only the trained pilots that Thailand will need but also the fully trained ground staff, facilities pares etc. None of these are cheap or readily available, not to mention the cost to Thailand to provide them.

 

Why should the USA provide lease/end aircraft to Thailand? They don't to any other country, and Thailand under the military, is certainly not a stable country. 

 

The USA is not providing F 35s even to the Ukraine and they are in a real war against Russia.

If the US enters any war with any country these things will be provided to allies. The US doesn't currently see a need to even provide F16's to Ukraine. Partly because they would be vulnerable to Russia's air defence system. Training on F35's would be lengthy and complex which, imo, actually bolsters the case for selling two of them.

[Phoenix Rising]

21 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

Another possible factor in this purchase decision seems to have escaped many people's short attention. If the Thais have trained pilots on the latest aircraft and the stuffing hits the fan as it looks like it very well might then the US could easily provide more aircraft under a Lend Lease type program.

Not a big fan on your little barbs in your recent posts. You seem to be the only supporter (on this forum) of this planned purchase and were I to find myself in such a position I'd start to questioning my own point of view. The Thai Armed Forces have a long history of "less than optimal" acquisitions yet when this is pointed out you're all silence. 

[ozimoron]

Just now, Phoenix Rising said:

Not a big fan on your little barbs in your recent posts. You seem to be the only supporter (on this forum) of this planned purchase and were I to find myself in such a position I'd start to questioning my own point of view. The Thai Armed Forces have a long history of "less than optimal" acquisitions yet when this is pointed out you're all silence. 

Aww shucks.

 

I prefer to think of it as the only one not gratuitously bashing Thais for decisions they (the posters) don't understand and don't want to understand. The Thais aren't stupid, contrary to what seems to be popular opinion around here and they must have sound reasons for wanting this aircraft. That little factoid seems lost on the detractors.

[Mavideol]

yeah, it's about the same time period that I expect to win the lottery ????????????

Edited January 2, 2023 by Mavideol

[billd766]

16 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

Yet another possibility which fits with there being only 2 aircraft proposed is aerial protection. When Zelensky flew to the US his aircraft was escorted by a single F35 together with a spy plane. They may well have a similar scenario is mind. Thailand has an unstable government on at least two of its borders. A single one of these aircraft can provide a very formidable defence against any attack.

But the F 35 was flown by a US aircrew and Thailand does not even have a spy plane to work with the F35 that they haven't got either.

 

Have you any idea of the cost of a spy/reconnaissance/control aircraft?

 

https://military-history.fandom.com/wiki/Boeing_RC-135#:~:text=The cost per airframe is, in the signal intelligence role.

 

The cost per airframe is believed to be $330 million. This is without trained air and ground crews, spares and backup systems for only ONE aircraft. To be operational tactically a country would need about 4 of them to keep one in the air 24/7/365.

[Phoenix Rising]

7 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

Aww shucks.

 

I prefer to think of it as the only one not gratuitously bashing Thais for decisions they (the posters) don't understand and don't want to understand. The Thais aren't stupid, contrary to what seems to be popular opinion around here and they must have sound reasons for wanting this aircraft. That little factoid seems lost on the detractors.

I'm also not enamored with the Thai bashers but you saying "they must have sound reasons for wanting this aircraft" seems naive to put it mildly.

Again, what would have been the 'sound reasoning' for acquiring that aircraft carrier?

[ozimoron]

4 minutes ago, Phoenix Rising said:

I'm also not enamored with the Thai bashers but you saying "they must have sound reasons for wanting this aircraft" seems naive to put it mildly.

Again, what would have been the 'sound reasoning' for acquiring that aircraft carrier?

I've offered a couple of suggestions which are also only speculation. What isn't speculation is that this decision was not made without extensive consultation with the USAF. They are not naive as you claim, clearly wanting to continue to bash Thais from a position of ignorance.

Edited January 2, 2023 by ozimoron

[billd766]

14 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

If the US enters any war with any country these things will be provided to allies. The US doesn't currently see a need to even provide F16's to Ukraine. Partly because they would be vulnerable to Russia's air defence system. Training on F35's would be lengthy and complex which, imo, actually bolsters the case for selling two of them.

Where do you get the idea that the USA will provide the F35 to its allies?

 

Just supplying the aircraft is easy. However the training of extra air crews is lengthy and expensive let alone training the ground crews and providing spares, tools and backup is also lengthy and expensive.

 

IMO with 25 years experience the the Royal Air Force you can expect an attrition rate of around 25 to 30% per sortie, or Thailand with only 2 aircraft  may last out day one before they are all shot up.

 

Remember that the F35 has never been tested in a real live situation yet so all the wonderful fighting information is only what people think it is capable of doing.

 

[Phoenix Rising]

5 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

I've offered a couple of suggestions which are also only speculation. What isn't speculation is that this decision was not made without extensive consultation with the USAF. They are not naive as you claim, clearly wanting to continue to bash Thais from a position of ignorance.

"'I've offered a couple of suggestions which are also only speculation."

Please link to it.

 

"What isn't speculation is that this decision was not made without extensive consultation with the USAF."

Then why is there such uncertainty that the US will even agree to the purchase?

 

"They are not naive as you claim, clearly wanting to continue to bash Thais from a position of ignorance."

I'm not a Thai basher, I'm bashing the out-of-civilian-control Thai Armed Forces specifically so please refrain from labeling me as one. And I never claimed they were naive so again, stop making untrue claims.

And as to who displays ignorance let's agree to disagree on that.

[ozimoron]

4 minutes ago, billd766 said:

Where do you get the idea that the USA will provide the F35 to its allies?

 

Just supplying the aircraft is easy. However the training of extra air crews is lengthy and expensive let alone training the ground crews and providing spares, tools and backup is also lengthy and expensive.

 

IMO with 25 years experience the the Royal Air Force you can expect an attrition rate of around 25 to 30% per sortie, or Thailand with only 2 aircraft  may last out day one before they are all shot up.

 

Remember that the F35 has never been tested in a real live situation yet so all the wonderful fighting information is only what people think it is capable of doing.

 

The whole point of the F35 is that it's likely to have a lower attrition rate than other fighters due to it's superior defensive capabilities.

[sqwakvfr]

Just one more thing to consider is the helmet for the F-35 is over $200,000.  

What the heck. Shoot for the moon and request to purchase the B-21 Raider as well.  I believe this aircraft will cost over $100,000 per hour to operate. 

Edited January 2, 2023 by sqwakvfr

[Jai Dee]

A baiting troll post and several replies have been removed.

[ozimoron]

In the event of an unexpected attack, “outdated” F-16s and F-5s stand no chance against more sophisticated opponents, and one Gripen fleet is definitely not enough to serve as a credible air deterrence.

 

All key U.S. partners in Asia, except the Philippines, now have (or are about to have) F-35s, enabling them to enjoy greater interoperability with each other. To maximize its security, the Thai military cannot afford to be left out of this new defense “inner circle.”

 

https://thediplomat.com/2022/08/thailands-awkward-pursuit-of-american-f-35as/

[dentman]

1 hour ago, ozimoron said:

Aww shucks.

 

I prefer to think of it as the only one not gratuitously bashing Thais for decisions they (the posters) don't understand and don't want to understand. The Thais aren't stupid, contrary to what seems to be popular opinion around here and they must have sound reasons for wanting this aircraft. That little factoid seems lost on the detractors.

Maybe it's really China that wants the jets.

 

I think Indonesia requested to purchase F-35 too and US said no  offering instead the f-15 eagles.

 

Thailand has no need for an F-35 or two, F-15 is more realistic.

[ozfarang]

16 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

In the event of an unexpected attack, “outdated” F-16s and F-5s stand no chance against more sophisticated opponents, and one Gripen fleet is definitely not enough to serve as a credible air deterrence.

 

All key U.S. partners in Asia, except the Philippines, now have (or are about to have) F-35s, enabling them to enjoy greater interoperability with each other. To maximize its security, the Thai military cannot afford to be left out of this new defense “inner circle.”

 

https://thediplomat.com/2022/08/thailands-awkward-pursuit-of-american-f-35as/

The last paragraph says it all regards the RTAF on the F-35 procurement.

 

"Ultimately, the RTAF’s procurement of American F-35As just comes across as too rushed, too challenging, and not cost-effective enough."

[ozimoron]

1 minute ago, dentman said:

Maybe it's really China that wants the jets.

 

I think Indonesia requested to purchase F-35 too and US said no  offering instead the f-15 eagles.

 

Thailand has no need for an F-35 or two, F-15 is more realistic.

The Chinese would only be interested in the weapons systems which will be absent from the initial purchases. Thailand is aware that this a concern for the US and is why they proposed to purchase them unarmed. The Chinese are well developed in aeronautics and stealth technology already.

[ozimoron]

2 minutes ago, ozfarang said:

The last paragraph says it all regards the RTAF on the F-35 procurement.

 

"Ultimately, the RTAF’s procurement of American F-35As just comes across as too rushed, too challenging, and not cost-effective enough."

The article provides a balanced assessment of the purchase. It isn't their decision to make. Thailand is determined to pursue a policy of quality over quantity.

[dentman]

10 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

The Chinese would only be interested in the weapons systems which will be absent from the initial purchases. Thailand is aware that this a concern for the US and is why they proposed to purchase them unarmed. The Chinese are well developed in aeronautics and stealth technology already.

I doubt the US would make the F-35's available to any country that conducts military exercises with China.

https://www.iseas.edu.sg/images/pdf/ISEAS_Perspective_2019_43.pdf

Edited January 2, 2023 by dentman

[Andycoops]

Wow, stealth fighters for Thailand such a joke.

They can't even stop clunky old Burmese jets from entering their airspace to murder innocent civilians.

Total waste of money but then the Muppets just like to have useless toys.

I suggest a Lego set or two...

[ozfarang]

3 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

The article provides a balanced assessment of the purchase. It isn't their decision to make. Thailand is determined to pursue a policy of quality over quantity.

Balanced assessment in your mind????

[ozimoron]

1 minute ago, ozfarang said:

Balanced assessment in your mind????

They put the arguments for and against. I call that balanced and I expect any rational person would as well.

[billd766]

1 hour ago, ozimoron said:

The whole point of the F35 is that it's likely to have a lower attrition rate than other fighters due to it's superior defensive capabilities.

But nobody really knows as it has never been put in a combat situation

 

What you have written is meaningless, simply because it has never been put to any test against ANY other air force in the world.

 

Thailand has no need for any aircraft as sophisticated as the F35. If you have 10 aircraft and your enemy has 100 to use against you, they can afford to lose 10 for each 1 of yours, and if their aircraft cost 20% of the price of yours they can afford to buy 5 for every one you can afford to buy.

 

It may well be a superior air defence or attack aircraft, but is it any use in ground attack? Can it fly up and down, forwards and backward, left and right like a helicopter or the old Harrier?

 

Remember that the more it costs, the more sophisticated it is, the more expensive it is to repair and maintain?

 

I will give you a simple example of costs.

 

If you have 2 aircraft you will need 4 pilots so that there are always 2 available, so for 10 aircraft you will need 20 pilots.

 

This is the cost of training only one pilot to the USA standard at 2018 costs.

 

https://www.statista.com/chart/17661/estimated-total-cost-of-training-a-basic-qualified-pilot-by-platform/

 

USD$10.17 million per pilot so to simply train 20 pilots will cost over USD$200 million or in baht at todays forex TT  rates of 34.37 thb that will cost Thailand around 7Billion thb. Remember that each pilot HAS to fly a certain number of day and night flying per month just to keep current.

 

https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/aviation/a41956551/cost-per-hour-to-fly-us-military-aircraft/

 

The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter costs $41,986 an hour across all models, including the F-35A for the Air Force, the F-35B for the Marine Corps, and the F-35C for the Marine Corps and Navy.

 

That $41,986 comes in at over 1,517,xxx thb per hour. Multiply that by 20 pilots at only 5 flying hours per month and you are looking at over 150,xxx,xxx thb per month, not counting the fatigue life of the aircraft.

 

If you buy a 10 or 20 million thb car and write it off, the insurance will pay for it. Military aircraft are NOT insurable, so if you write it off, the country has to buy a new one which puts you at the back of the queue.

 

Thailand CANNOT afford an out of control military spending just as it cannot afford to give extra face to bought and paid for generals.

[JimGant]

What realistic threat is RTAF modernizing against? Obviously you could name several threats, e.g., the US or China -- but the operative word is "realistic." And neither of these threats meets that characterization -- unless Thailand stupidly got into a security pact with either of these countries. And it's doubtful that they would.

 

A key point from the article ozimoron introduced is this:

Quote

The F-35’s operating and maintenance costs are simply too expensive, to the point where the U.S. Air Force cannot realistically afford to replace all of its old F-16s with F-35s.

Ah, when you analyze cost effectiveness, the US realizes the F-16s are still an effective fighting force -- air-to-air or air-to-ground -- against most imaginable enemies. Thus, they'll remain the bulk of the US air assets for the foreseeable future. But, they are being slowly replaced by F-35s.....

 

.... and those replaced F-16s are heading for the boneyard in Arizona. And these are late model F-16s. Thailand's F-16 fleet are worn-out A/B variants. Wouldn't it make sense for Thailand to buy some of these boneyard aircraft to replace its A/B fleet? And maybe buy more to replace its worn-out F-5Es? Hey, the RTAF would already be fully trained on these newer F-16s, except for the more modern avionics. But that's a drop in the bucket compared to the cost of full up training, ground and air, for F-35s.

 

Anyway, the "toys for the boys" argument seems to resonate. And when the PM is part of that 'old boys network,' wasteful military spending is par for the course. No, given the threat, current or projected, there's no logical 'cost effective argument' for buying F-35s -- especially if it's only two you can afford up-front.

 

 

 

 

[ozimoron]

5 minutes ago, JimGant said:

What realistic threat is RTAF modernizing against? Obviously you could name several threats, e.g., the US or China -- but the operative word is "realistic." And neither of these threats meets that characterization -- unless Thailand stupidly got into a security pact with either of these countries. And it's doubtful that they would.

 

A key point from the article ozimoron introduced is this:

Ah, when you analyze cost effectiveness, the US realizes the F-16s are still an effective fighting force -- air-to-air or air-to-ground -- against most imaginable enemies. Thus, they'll remain the bulk of the US air assets for the foreseeable future. But, they are being slowly replaced by F-35s.....

 

.... and those replaced F-16s are heading for the boneyard in Arizona. And these are late model F-16s. Thailand's F-16 fleet are worn-out A/B variants. Wouldn't it make sense for Thailand to buy some of these boneyard aircraft to replace its A/B fleet? And maybe buy more to replace its worn-out F-5Es? Hey, the RTAF would already be fully trained on these newer F-16s, except for the more modern avionics. But that's a drop in the bucket compared to the cost of full up training, ground and air, for F-35s.

 

Anyway, the "toys for the boys" argument seems to resonate. And when the PM is part of that 'old boys network,' wasteful military spending is par for the course. No, given the threat, current or projected, there's no logical 'cost effective argument' for buying F-35s -- especially if it's only two you can afford up-front.

What realistic threat is Singapore or Australia facing? Why did they buy the F35?

[Nsp64]

You're not having anymore toys. Now go to your room and dont ask again you naughty little boys. 

 

[Nsp64]

7 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

What realistic threat is Singapore or Australia facing? Why did they buy the F35?

Because their health system works, education is good,  poverty minimal,  social welfare high.

In other words,  their house is in order,  so they can buy planes because they've fulfilled their primary obligations to the electorate.

Completely the opposite to Thailand. 

 

[ozimoron]

10 minutes ago, Nsp64 said:

Because their health system works, education is good,  poverty minimal,  social welfare high.

In other words,  their house is in order,  so they can buy planes because they've fulfilled their primary obligations to the electorate.

Completely the opposite to Thailand.

I'd disagree with that. Australia's health system is not good. Poverty is rife, social welfare is insufficient, well below poverty levels. When you take into account the number of aircraft being purchased, Thailand can afford it. There was major push back against the F35 purchases (and submarines as well) in Australia on the basis of affordability.

[JimGant]

29 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

When you take into account the number of aircraft being purchased, Thailand can afford it.

Ah, yes: two. I think you can rest your case now.