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

[hotchilli]

11 minutes ago, Harsh Jones said:

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. 

Nah, Thailand only wants to buy jets from USA so they will continue to buy Thai produce.

Thailand wants Chinese Subs so they will continue to provide some infrastructure.

They are not playing each country off against each other...

more like keeping a foot in each countries door.

[billd766]

2 hours 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/

You believe a Hollywood movie over real life?

[Phoenix Rising]

1 minute ago, hotchilli said:

Nah, Thailand only wants to buy jets from USA so they will continue to buy Thai produce.

Thailand wants Chinese Subs so they will continue to provide some infrastructure.

They are not playing each country off against each other...

more like keeping a foot in each countries door.

In the end the decision to attempt to buy two aircraft (which in itself is ridiculous) might have been political as you point out. From a military perspective it makes no sense whatsoever.

[Phoenix Rising]

2 minutes ago, billd766 said:

You believe a Hollywood movie over real life?

I think we both know the answer to that question since the poster thinks the acquisition of two (2) aircraft makes any military sense at all.

[Liverpool Lou]

11 minutes ago, Phoenix Rising said:

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!

I didn't say that they are more professional/less corrupt, I said that they are not involved in each others' equipment purchases, which is factual.

Edited January 3, 2023 by Liverpool Lou

[billd766]

21 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

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

Really?  Have you had access to read the contract in English and in full? 

 

Would you like to post it here for us all to see?

[Phoenix Rising]

1 minute ago, Liverpool Lou said:

I didn't say that they are more professional/less corrupt, I said that they are not involved in each others' equipment purchases, which is factual.

Which is obvious and pointless. 

[Liverpool Lou]

Just now, billd766 said:

26 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

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

Really?  Have you had access to read the contract in English and in full? 

I don't need to see individual contracts, these types of specialised equipment acquisitions always come with whatever is needed to operate the equipment and maintain it and specialised training for the operators.    Your contrary assumption that they do not re F-35s is ridiculous.

[Liverpool Lou]

3 minutes ago, Phoenix Rising said:

6 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

I didn't say that they are more professional/less corrupt, I said that they are not involved in each others' equipment purchases, which is factual.

Which is obvious and pointless. 

Also factual and relevant to your "argument".

[billd766]

21 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

I don't need to see individual contracts, these types of specialised equipment acquisitions always come with whatever is needed to operate the equipment and maintain it and specialised training for the operators.    Your contrary assumption that they do not re F-35s is ridiculous.

No they don't.

 

If the contract specifies ONLY the purchase of two aircraft, without weapons systems, that is what they will get.

 

OTOH if they wish to purchase a training package and a spares package, then they have to specify what they want, and those packages will be in separate contracts.

 

If you don't need to see the contracts then perhaps you are making assumptions that are not correct.

Edited January 3, 2023 by billd766
corrected some bad spelling

[Phoenix Rising]

7 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

Also factual and relevant to your "argument".

I'm sorry but if, by now, you don't understand the point I'm trying to make I don't think anything I say can help you.

[connda]

Better off going with export versions of Sukhoi aircraft.

[ozimoron]

47 minutes ago, Phoenix Rising said:

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.

Why don't you provide a considered, rational argument to support your opinions instead while we're on the subject of advice.

[herfiehandbag]

2 hours ago, ozimoron said:

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

The most important skill is the ability to fight the weapon system.

Remove the weapons, and the associated sensors, optical and electronic, all you are training and practicing are "drivers B3 airframe".

 

It is a bit like claiming your infantry are the best because they have the latest "Gucci" digital pattern combat suits, really high tech boots, and ignoring the fact that they don't have any rifles!

[ozimoron]

Just now, herfiehandbag said:

The most important skill is the ability to fight the weapon system.

Remove the weapons, and the associated sensors, optical and electronic, all you are training and practicing are "drivers B3 airframe".

 

It is a bit like claiming your infantry are the best because they have the latest "Gucci" digital pattern combat suits, really high tech boots, and ignoring the fact that they don't have any rifles!

That's just your opinion and you're entitled to it.

[Liverpool Lou]

33 minutes ago, Phoenix Rising said:

42 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

Also factual and relevant to your "argument".

I'm sorry but if, by now, you don't understand the point I'm trying to make I don't think anything I say can help you.

I don't need your "help"!

[Phoenix Rising]

22 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

Why don't you provide a considered, rational argument to support your opinions instead while we're on the subject of advice.

Right. The armed forces of Thailand's main purpose is to keep the old guard in power. They're an instrument so that a certain group can have more or less exclusive access to the trough. As is the case with Thai society as a whole the armed forces suffer from rampant nepotism and corruption and even more so in a situation where they don't answer to any elected politicians. In fact, those who run the whole show politically also run the armed forces. 

Accordingly, there are no checks and balances in place when it comes to military acquisitions, and recent Thai history is littered with examples of disastrous decisions ending up costing Thailand countless of billions of Baht.

So based on all this, when Thailand goes ahead and orders two (2) F-35* I seriously question their motives and the underlying decision process.

 

*Why this is such a harebrained purchase has been explained by billd766 far better than I could ever do.

 

[Phoenix Rising]

32 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

That's just your opinion and you're entitled to it.

No, those are facts. It's just like an aircraft carrier without aircraft - total and utter waste of money.

[ozimoron]

4 minutes ago, Phoenix Rising said:

No, those are facts. It's just like an aircraft carrier without aircraft - total and utter waste of money.

You claim it's facts and as long as you do you need to substantiate it with a link. Even an opinion is worthless without a cogent argument. Claiming that an unsubstantiated opinion is fact without that is just insulting everyone's intelligence and wasting our time.

Edited January 3, 2023 by ozimoron

[billd766]

2 hours ago, ozimoron said:

That's just your opinion and you're entitled to it.

If you don't have any weapon system and the aircrew trained to use it then the aircraft is of no use at all, so why would you waste money buying it?

[Phoenix Rising]

1 hour ago, ozimoron said:

You claim it's facts and as long as you do you need to substantiate it with a link. Even an opinion is worthless without a cogent argument. Claiming that an unsubstantiated opinion is fact without that is just insulting everyone's intelligence and wasting our time.

If you wanna cut down on time wasting you really shouldn't try to defend this inane acquisition attempt.

[ozimoron]

2 minutes ago, billd766 said:

If you don't have any weapon system and the aircrew trained to use it then the aircraft is of no use at all, so why would you waste money buying it?

It's your opinion that it's no use at all. You make no attempt to explain why. The weapons system can be simulated in a simulator just as can be the flying itself. That keeps the hardware and software away from the Chinese which is why the Thais offered to buy it without weapons. The weapon systems could be retrofitted in a heartbeat.

 

You really should make an attempt to justify your opinions rather than just state them as if they were fact.

[Phoenix Rising]

1 minute ago, billd766 said:

If you don't have any weapon system and the aircrew trained to use it then the aircraft is of no use at all, so why would you waste money buying it?

Exactly, and that's not an opinion, it's a fact.

 

PS. I wouldn't say it would be of no use at all. Imagine the fatties the 1700ish flag officers* would get having their picture taken next to an RTAF F-35 when it's rolled out once a year on Armed Forces Day (or 'Sadly No Golf Day' as they like to call it).

 

*Royal Thai Armed Forces

"The Thai military has more than 1,700 flag officers (generals and admirals), roughly one general for every 212 troops, a bloated number for a military of its size."

[Phoenix Rising]

5 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

It's your opinion that it's no use at all. You make no attempt to explain why. The weapons system can be simulated in a simulator just as can be the flying itself. That keeps the hardware and software away from the Chinese which is why the Thais offered to buy it without weapons. The weapon systems could be retrofitted in a heartbeat.

 

You really should make an attempt to justify your opinions rather than just state them as if they were fact.

"It's your opinion that it's no use at all. You make no attempt to explain why."

Probably because it's bleedin' obvious.

 

Look, with every post you just make it more and more clear you haven't got the foggiest notion of what you're talking about.

"The weapons system can be simulated in a simulator just as can be the flying itself."

Really, simulator practice can replace actual flying??

 

"That keeps the hardware and software away from the Chinese which is why the Thais offered to buy it without weapons. The weapon systems could be retrofitted in a heartbeat."

Really, retrofitted in a heartbeat??

 

[ozimoron]

5 minutes ago, Phoenix Rising said:

Exactly, and that's not an opinion, it's a fact.

 

PS. I wouldn't say it would be of no use at all. Imagine the fatties the 1700ish flag officers* would get having their picture taken next to an RTAF F-35 when it's rolled out once a year on Armed Forces Day (or 'Sadly No Golf Day' as they like to call it).

 

*Royal Thai Armed Forces

"The Thai military has more than 1,700 flag officers (generals and admirals), roughly one general for every 212 troops, a bloated number for a military of its size."

On ignore for repeated failure to debate in good faith.

[Phoenix Rising]

44 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

On ignore for repeated failure to debate in good faith.

Faith? As in not having faith in what you're posting?

[beachbuggy]

On 1/2/2023 at 2:04 PM, sqwakvfr said:

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. 

But no one wears a helmet in Thailand

[billd766]

2 hours ago, ozimoron said:

On ignore for repeated failure to debate in good faith.

You are not even debating.

 

Quote "The weapons system can be simulated in a simulator just as can be the flying itself. That keeps the hardware and software away from the Chinese which is why the Thais offered to buy it without weapons. The weapon systems could be retrofitted in a heartbeat."

 

Nothing can be retro fitted in a heartbeat. To start with the aircraft will need to be returned to the factory in the USA. How will they get there?

 

The ferry range of an F35b is about 900 miles without external fuel tanks. The RTAF does NOT have any air refuelling tankers so, they will have to rely on another country, probably the USA to get them back The alternative is to dismantle the aircraft and then fly them back in another aircraft. Will the fit in a Hercules? I have no idea but that is the largest aircraft that the RTAF have.

 

Having returned to the factory they will then need to be slotted in somewhere in the production line for the retrofit when it is available. Eventually they will be returned to service but that will cost a lot more as it won't be in the original contract.

 

 

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7990022#:~:text=Fighter af...-,There is a difference between combat radius and ferry range,35Bs fly without external tanks.

 

Now where will this wonderful simulator be situated and who will own it? If it does not belong to Thailand then Thailand will have to send the pilots to wherever it is and book the time to use it.

 

If it does belong to Thailand they will have to buy it and pay for the people to be trained to operate and maintain it Where then will it be situated? In the USA or in Thailand?

 

Is there a contract to buy, rent or hire the use of it?

 

There is NO justification at all for buying only two weaponless aircraft let alone the extra cost and manpower required.

 

I do research my subject and I supply the links, in this case about the purchase of only two F35 aircraft, pointing out very carefully the cost and pitfalls of that purchase.

 

You on the other hand have no conception of the extra costs entailed by Thailand and cannot even come up with any sensible arguments in favour of the purchase other than they can be refitted in a heartbeat.

 

Any aircraft designed o be stealthy and as an air to air combat fighteris useless without any weapons system.

 

You were correct in one sense when you quote Phoenix Rising who you said 

 

"You are not even debating."

 

The thing that you got wrong it that it is not him, not me or anyone else who is not even debating, it is YOU.

 

You have dug yourself into a deep hole and refuse to be helped out of it.

 

I have only two things left to say.

 

1   I am glad that you have nothing to do with any military purchases in Thailand

 

2   On ignore

 

[ozimoron]

9 minutes ago, billd766 said:

You are not even debating.

 

Quote "The weapons system can be simulated in a simulator just as can be the flying itself. That keeps the hardware and software away from the Chinese which is why the Thais offered to buy it without weapons. The weapon systems could be retrofitted in a heartbeat."

 

Nothing can be retro fitted in a heartbeat. To start with the aircraft will need to be returned to the factory in the USA. How will they get there?

 

The ferry range of an F35b is about 900 miles without external fuel tanks. The RTAF does NOT have any air refuelling tankers so, they will have to rely on another country, probably the USA to get them back The alternative is to dismantle the aircraft and then fly them back in another aircraft. Will the fit in a Hercules? I have no idea but that is the largest aircraft that the RTAF have.

 

Having returned to the factory they will then need to be slotted in somewhere in the production line for the retrofit when it is available. Eventually they will be returned to service but that will cost a lot more as it won't be in the original contract.

 

 

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7990022#:~:text=Fighter af...-,There is a difference between combat radius and ferry range,35Bs fly without external tanks.

 

Now where will this wonderful simulator be situated and who will own it? If it does not belong to Thailand then Thailand will have to send the pilots to wherever it is and book the time to use it.

 

If it does belong to Thailand they will have to buy it and pay for the people to be trained to operate and maintain it Where then will it be situated? In the USA or in Thailand?

 

Is there a contract to buy, rent or hire the use of it?

 

There is NO justification at all for buying only two weaponless aircraft let alone the extra cost and manpower required.

 

I do research my subject and I supply the links, in this case about the purchase of only two F35 aircraft, pointing out very carefully the cost and pitfalls of that purchase.

 

You on the other hand have no conception of the extra costs entailed by Thailand and cannot even come up with any sensible arguments in favour of the purchase other than they can be refitted in a heartbeat.

 

Any aircraft designed o be stealthy and as an air to air combat fighteris useless without any weapons system.

 

You were correct in one sense when you quote Phoenix Rising who you said 

 

"You are not even debating."

 

The thing that you got wrong it that it is not him, not me or anyone else who is not even debating, it is YOU.

 

You have dug yourself into a deep hole and refuse to be helped out of it.

 

I have only two things left to say.

 

1   I am glad that you have nothing to do with any military purchases in Thailand

 

2   On ignore

 

Why would the Thai aircraft need to go back to the US. The weapons systems could be fitted here.

 

Yes, the Thai pilots would need to go to the US for training in a simulator. Guess what? They do now. What I said was that Singapore is likely to have a simulator, as is Australia.

 

https://www.f35.com/f35/news-and-features/10-ways-the-f35-simulator-is-changing-pilot-training.html

 

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

Edited January 3, 2023 by ozimoron

[sqwakvfr]

6 hours ago, Liverpool Lou said:

I don't need your "help"!

You are correct. Royal Thai Air Force then can save $200K.