10 hours ago, billd766 said:

Not necessarily.

 

It depends on what you are buying and that will be laid out in the contract between the Thai government and Lockheed-Martin.

 

Thailand wants to buy two F35s. Training aircrew, groundcrew and support equipment will come under separate contracts.

 

There are NO 2 seat trainer F35s, so long before any Thai pilot goes solo there 

 

Aircrew training will probably be done under contract to the US Air Force. The groundcrew training may be done the same way or perhaps by a different company.

 

There is no your word, obviously, about it at all.

 

Nothing is free nowadays.

 

https://www.lockheedmartin.com/en-us/products/f-35-lightning-ii-training-systems.html

 

 

I wonder whether any maintenance contract will cover the costs, "labour and parts", for putting them back together again after various "interested observers" have had a really good look at them?

 

I also wonder what the going rate " per hour" will be for having a really good look at them?

 

As you say: " nothing is free nowadays"!

On 1/2/2023 at 8:25 AM, Boomer6969 said:

The Vietnamese have 35 Su-30s with Vietnamese pilots in it...

The Vietnamese have a much larger standing army, they are the regional military power, not Thailand, but this is often overlooked.

 

They are used to fighting too, most recently against French, China, USA etc. but they have a long history of martial prowess.

11 hours ago, Dan747 said:

The USA has been looking for remote forward bases to deploy-Reopen U-Tapao and let the USA use it for the purchase of two F-35's.

Utapao is going to be Thailand's second airport after Suvarnabhumi, they are planning to spend billions upgrading it to handle 60 million passengers per year. Upgrades to be done in phases over a 20 year period. All part of the grand EEC plan.

1 minute ago, Mr Meeseeks said:

The Vietnamese have a much larger standing army, they are the regional military power, not Thailand, but this is often overlooked.

 

They are used to fighting too, most recently against French, China, USA etc. but they have a long history of martial prowess.

None of those pilots fought in the Vietnam War. They were trained from scratch like all pilots. The Su-30 is not comparable to the F35.

10 hours ago, herfiehandbag said:

Yet the submarine base, headquarters and training centre is at the very top of the Gulf of Thailand.To reach the Andaman sea they would have to pass down the coast of Malaysia, round Singapore and through the Malacca Straits. Areas in which submarine activities are heavily monitored. Now I'm no naval expert (simple infantryman me) but that seems a bit silly.

 

Similarly spending an awful lot of money on two very advanced jet fighters, with no weapon systems fitted, for training and exercises when they are not capable of combat or meaningful training ( no weapons) seems a bit silly.

It's all about the money. They don't need to be effective.

2 minutes ago, Mr Meeseeks said:

It's all about the money. They don't need to be effective.

The Thais have declared a strategy of quality over quantity. It's not for anyone on this board to make claims about Thailand's budget. Nobody here is qualified or has the information to do so.

2 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

None of those pilots fought in the Vietnam War. They were trained from scratch like all pilots. The Su-30 is not comparable to the F35.

Correct, the Su-30's the Viets fly have weapons systems, the F35's the Thais want to buy do not.

Just now, ozimoron said:

The Thais have declared a strategy of quality over quantity.

With no weapons systems? ????

1 minute ago, Mr Meeseeks said:

Correct, the Su-30's the Viets fly have weapons systems, the F35's the Thais want to buy do not.

They don't need the weapons at this time. They want the skills.

Just now, ozimoron said:

They don't need the weapons at this time. They want the skills.

It is not a harrier where pilot skills matter. These things are fly-by-wire now.

 

You are attempting to create a narrative that the Thais want these things for something other than simply to enrich those involved in procurement and subsequent services to enrich themselves.

 

The majority of us here know better.

3 minutes ago, Mr Meeseeks said:

It is not a harrier where pilot skills matter. These things are fly-by-wire now.

 

You are attempting to create a narrative that the Thais want these things for something other than simply to enrich those involved in procurement and subsequent services to enrich themselves.

 

The majority of us here know better.

You're trying to create a narrative / conspiracy theory that the Thais want the F35 for any reason other than to update their air force capabilities. I'm not creating anything. I invoke Occam's razor.

1 hour ago, ozimoron said:

While both fighters are designed to be stealthy there is no question that the F-35 is more effective.

 

https://www.operationmilitarykids.org/f-35-vs-su-57-differences/

Stealth means that the fuselage and shape was computer designed to be as small on radar as possible. All 5th gen jets have it. That is why they all have the same distinct look compared to all the 4th gen jets. But lots of clickbait articles will claim that the su 57 has no better stealth than a 4th gen. Anyone with any basic understanding of stealth will know that isn't true. 

 

The naked eye works similar to stealth too. The su 57 is actually the slimmest fighter of them all. The smallest profile and thus the hardest for your eye to see

 

 

1 minute ago, Harsh Jones said:

Stealth means that the fuselage and shape was computer designed to be as small on radar as possible. All 5th gen jets have it. That is why they all have the same distinct look compared to all the 4th gen jets. But lots of clickbait articles will claim that the su 57 has no better stealth than a 4th gen. Anyone with any basic understanding of stealth will know that isn't true. 

 

The naked eye works similar to stealth too. The su 57 is actually the slimmest fighter of them all. The smallest profile and thus the hardest for your eye to see

 

 

Stealth means radar, not occular visibility.

13 hours ago, Liverpool Lou said:

No one has said that there was sound reasoning behind that (irrelevant to this F-35 thread) acquisition.

So why the presumption that there was sound reasoning behind the attempted purchase of TWO (2) F-35 fighters when the Thai Armed Forces have on many occasions shown that sound reasoning is not necessarily what drives their decision making? 

11 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

Stealth means radar, not occular visibility.

Actually, it can be both.

1 minute ago, ozimoron said:

Stealth means radar, not occular visibility.

The smaller something is to begin with, the harder it is for radar too see. 

 

Stealth is not some magical formula that makes planes invisible to radar.  It is all just a gradient subject to the laws of physics. Which is just to say, this idea that the F-22 is 0.000034 RCS and the su 57 is 1.00 RCS is nonsense. But thats what the western defense media puts out there.

2 minutes ago, Phoenix Rising said:

So why the presumption that there was sound reasoning behind the attempted purchase of TWO (2) F-35 fighters when the Thai Armed Forces have on many occasions shown that sound reasoning is not necessarily what drives their decision making? 

Because of a general skepticism of conspiracy theories and general belief that high level professional (not political) decision making is rational.

1 minute ago, Harsh Jones said:

The smaller something is to begin with, the harder it is for radar too see. 

 

Stealth is not some magical formula that makes planes invisible to radar.  It is all just a gradient subject to the laws of physics. Which is just to say, this idea that the F-22 is 0.000034 RCS and the su 57 is 1.00 RCS is nonsense. But thats what the western defense media puts out there.

Deleted.

 

On 1/1/2023 at 4:04 PM, snoop1130 said:

The Royal Thai Air Force (RTAF) is expecting to get a clearer picture from the United States about its plan to purchase two F-35 stealth fighter jets in the middle of this year, RTAF Commander-in-Chief Air Chief Marshal Alongkorn Vannarot said on Sunday.

What is the point of Two jets... photo ops?

On 1/1/2023 at 5:02 PM, Phoenix Rising said:

This is ALL about toys for the boys

Perfectly put...

1 minute ago, ozimoron said:

Because of a general skepticism of conspiracy theories and general belief that high level professional (not political) decision making is rational.

So again back to the example of the aircraft carrier. What exactly was that an example of? I know you avoid that glaring example of 'non-professional' decision making by the Thai armed forces like the plague but you really need to address it if you're gonna continue maintaining that you have faith in their "high level professional (not political) decision making".

Just now, Harsh Jones said:

The smaller something is to begin with, the harder it is for radar too see. 

 

Stealth is not some magical formula that makes planes invisible to radar.  It is all just a gradient subject to the laws of physics. Which is just to say, this idea that the F-22 is 0.000034 RCS and the su 57 is 1.00 RCS is nonsense. But thats what the western defense media puts out there.

Completely wrong. There is no correlation between occular visibility and radar visibility.

 

This ship is no less visible to the human eye than any other ship.

 

https://whitefleet.net/2017/11/26/what-is-stealth-explaining-low-observability-addressing-misconceptions/

 

4 minutes ago, Phoenix Rising said:

So again back to the example of the aircraft carrier. What exactly was that an example of? I know you avoid that glaring example of 'non-professional' decision making by the Thai armed forces like the plague but you really need to address it if you're gonna continue maintaining that you have faith in their "high level professional (not political) decision making".

I made no mention of the aircraft carrier. It's likely similar to the decision by Australia to purchase Collins class submarines. The objective was sound but the boat had serious flaws which made it useless.

 

The F35 is not criticised for being useless so your comparison is not valid and of therefore of no value.

 

The RTAF objective is based on sound reasoning as explained in earlier posts. A point basically established by detractors reliance on spurious claims of affordability.

1 minute ago, hotchilli said:

What is the point of Two jets... photo ops?

Yes. Think of if you were a career air force guy. Why wouldn't you want the most tricked out kit you could get ? Thailand knows it is a middle country and is unlikely to involve itself in a real war. This isn't the same for China or India say. 

 

They are playing the game. Playing China and the US off of each other. The US knows that if they don't offer F-35's , the Thai's are gonna knock on China's door and ask for J-35's. Maybe they want J-35's all along, but they just want to get a NO from the US so that they don't get mad at them when the J-35's show up. 

12 hours ago, billd766 said:

13 hours ago, Liverpool Lou said:

That'd be all part of any sale package...obviously.

Not necessarily.

...but every contract such as this potential purchase does have those inclusions, obviously.

17 minutes ago, Phoenix Rising said:

13 hours ago, Liverpool Lou said:

No one has said that there was sound reasoning behind that (irrelevant to this F-35 thread) acquisition.

So why the presumption that there was sound reasoning behind the attempted purchase of TWO (2) F-35 fighters when the Thai Armed Forces have on many occasions shown that sound reasoning is not necessarily what drives their decision making? 

"...why the presumption that there was sound reasoning..."

Here's one, the RTAF was not involved in the acquisition of the RTN's aircraft carrier and the RTN brass are not involved in the RTAF's aircraft purchases.

2 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

I made no mention of the aircraft carrier. It's likely similar to the decision by Australia to purchase Collins class submarines. The objective was sound but the boat had serious flaws which made it useless.

 

The F35 is not criticised for being useless so your comparison is not valid and of therefore of no value.

What a lame reply!???? The aircraft carrier had no serious technical flaws. The flaw was in the decision to purchase it in the first place, just like with the F-35.

Friendly advise; maybe you should think about retiring from this thread before the hole you're digging for yourself gets too big.

10 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

Completely wrong. There is no correlation between occular visibility and radar visibility.

 

This ship is no less visible to the human eye than any other ship.

 

https://whitefleet.net/2017/11/26/what-is-stealth-explaining-low-observability-addressing-misconceptions/

 

If an identical ship was built except 10% smaller, the smaller one would have a smaller radar crossection. 

 

So when we are talking about 5th gen aircraft of a similar size and basic design , it matters. The YF-23 had better all aspect stealth than the F-22 for this reason. It was a very flat blend wing. And the su 57 is too.

 

13 hours ago, ozimoron said:

They have flight training simulators so it won't take Thai airmen any longer to train than a US airman.

 

Why does there necessarily need to be an additional contract for ground crew and support? I would expect those to be trained in the US as well, maybe even in Singapore.

 

 

Flight simulators are specific to aircraft type and AFAIK Thailand does NOT have an F35 flight simulator

 

Of course it won't take much longer to train a Thai pilot than a US pilot, provided that the Thai is completely fluent in (US) English speaking, reading and writing.

 

You have simply no idea about any military air force ground crew or aircrew for that matter. To simply assume that any groundcrew trained on any aircraft can simply move across to a different type and start work straight away is foolishness.

 

If you think that groundcrew will simply be trained in the USA or Singapore on a completely new aircraft type and it will be easy, think of the language barrier.

 

The common language is UK or US English, all the manuals are written in English. So the groundcrew men from Thailand will need to be like the Thai Pilots, that is completely fluent in (US) English speaking, reading and writing.

3 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

"...why the presumption that there was sound reasoning..."

Here's one, the RTAF was not involved in the acquisition of the RTN's aircraft carrier and the RTN brass are not involved in the RTAF's aircraft purchases.

Yes, because the RTAF is obviously so much more professional than the rest of the armed forces and in no way affected by the rampant corruption and nepotism that permeates Thai society.

OK then!