Armed Forces To Seek Over 300 Billion In Development For 10 Years

[Prakanong]

"Obviously this is no longer an issue given the end of self serving corruption following the liberation of the country from the Thaksin Dictatorship"

I hope you are being ironic!

You really think the corruption surrounding the purchase of military goods started and ended woth the Thaksin era???

I bet it probably slowed down in the Thaksin period compared to others.

BTW: I am not defending corruption during the Thaksin era though - I still would not call it a dictatorship either because after all he was elected - you might have an argument for tyranny of the majority but even that is pretty weak and could be said with regard to many other democracy's

Edited December 2, 2007 by Prakanong

[younghusband]

I can appreciate that the vast majority of people are completely unaware of a submarine's tactical abilities as it's not generally available knowledge, which highlights the cornerstone of a submarine's abilities and that is stealth and secrecy.

Confidentiality prevents me from revealing most of my experiences, but I will say I've viewed through a periscope on many occasions to see a sea-craft ranging from single-man sailboats to aircraft carriers and all sorts in-between and not one of them was aware of our presence even though at times we were extremely close to them. Given that huge advantage, a submarine's armament can consist of weaponry that is able to quickly dispose of any of that vast array of craft.

I'd just add that YH's response yesterday was better put.

Most 12 year old schoolboys are aware of modern subs' stealth abilities.Of course there have been similar improvements in the ablity to detect this.Forgive me for deflating the fantasy trip but if anyone had genuine confidential knowledge, it would not even be alluded to on this forum.Anyway nothing wrong with armchair dreaming:I do it myself.Poop poop.

[sriracha john]

There's more to subs than what shows up in a Tom Clancy movie.

What sort of ASW tactics have proven successful?

What are the specific restrictions imposed on submariners as to what they can and cannot discuss?

[JR Texas]

No way disagree on that one.

Submarines are useless trying to take on fast boats. You are assuming that a sub knows what acoustic signature a 'pirate boat' has. They don't have a recognisable signature because they could be using any commercially available engine thats to hand. A sub could be tracking a couple of tourists out for a jolly when the bad guys are getting away.

Military vessels typically use specific engines already known operators.

Subs are useful against other subs and big military vessels, but chasing small craft would be a waste of time.

You'd have more success using a Type VII German U-Boat with deck gun and AA gun than a modern sub for pirate hunting.

Thailand is trying to see itself as the daddy of SE Asia when it's really just a paper tiger. If I had to put my money on any army/military in SE Asia it wouldn't be Thailand, it would either be Malaysia or the PI.

Thailand has an ok military compared with Laos and Cambodia but thats where it ends, lets not kid ourselves that just cause we're living here we must be in bed with the almighty empire of Asia

Thailand is a piss ant........China could stomp on them at any moment. We all know where the money will go and why........nothing to do with national defense. Reminds me of the corruption in academia in Thailand........99% of the administrators should be fired.

[mrtoad]

In the meantime the Mr Toad types will continue to witter on about submarines and "attacking prates from below".Poop Poop.

Leave me out of it. I haven't said anything.

[Plus]

I think that a sub in the Gulf and another in Andaman would help a lot against pirates, illegal fishing or oil smuggling. These are common threats faced by Malaysia and Singapore as well, they aren't going to attack each other.

If they can manage to deal with these threats together, then Thailand should chip in and do its own part, like providing a sub at the nothern end of Malacca straits.

F15s are at the end of their life, they needed to be replaced years ago. Thaksin would have bought Russian jets anyway, deciding to go with Nato compatible Gripens is probably a more sensible choice.

Given that the defence spending has shrank in the past ten years, the increase is a rather natural adjustment.

10% corruption charge is unavoidable whoever is in charge.

I doubt that Singapore government's spending on healthcare or education matches Thailand's. Do they even have a public healthcare system similar to 30 baht scheme? I think not. Prakhanong can clarify this for sure. In education Thailand is first in the region, I remember from the news. The problem is they waste most of it on infrastructure and don't spend enough on human resources.

[Prakanong]

I think that a sub in the Gulf and another in Andaman would help a lot against pirates, illegal fishing or oil smuggling. These are common threats faced by Malaysia and Singapore as well, they aren't going to attack each other.

If they can manage to deal with these threats together, then Thailand should chip in and do its own part, like providing a sub at the nothern end of Malacca straits.

F15s are at the end of their life, they needed to be replaced years ago. Thaksin would have bought Russian jets anyway, deciding to go with Nato compatible Gripens is probably a more sensible choice.

Given that the defence spending has shrank in the past ten years, the increase is a rather natural adjustment.

10% corruption charge is unavoidable whoever is in charge.

I doubt that Singapore government's spending on healthcare or education matches Thailand's. Do they even have a public healthcare system similar to 30 baht scheme? I think not. Prakhanong can clarify this for sure. In education Thailand is first in the region, I remember from the news. The problem is they waste most of it on infrastructure and don't spend enough on human resources.

From Singapore MoH website

"Good, affordable basic healthcare is available to Singaporeans through subsidised medical services at public hospitals and clinics. Our hospitals and healthcare system will never withhold help to a Singaporean because of financial limitations. Yet our philosophy promotes individual responsibility towards healthy living and medical expenses. Medisave, Medishield, ElderShield and Medifund schemes exist to help Singaporeans “co-pay” their medical expenses. "

Tim Harford in the "Undercover Economist" rather likes the Singapore system from an economists point of view - better than the UK public or the USA private systems

As for % of GDP here ar the figures - " In 2005, Singapore spent about S$ 7.6 billion or 3.8% of GDP on healthcare. Out of this the Government expended S$1.8 billion or 0.9% of GDP on health services."

Thailands healthcare spending http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTTHAI...rkshop-ihpp.pdf - 6% of GDP on Health but thats not obviously all government spending - private sector too

The Singapore health system is very good - I have used both the Thai and the Singapore as well as working with both - I know where I would be treated and its not Thailand

You are just more likely to get the "Gold Standard" treatment here first and that comes from Dr's who really know this

However - its outcomes that count and I beleive Singapore wins on that

I bet they do on education too - Singapore has one of the best education systems in the world and Thailand one of the worst for a country with its wealth and economy

Edit - just found this article with Education budget from 2004

It estimates 4% of GDP on Education down from 4.3% in 2000

This is interesting - sorry about the formatting but hope its understandable - thank F$%^ we beat Thailand ;-))

International educational scores (1997)

(13-year-old's average score, TIMSS

Third International Math and Science Study, 1997)

Countries:

(sample) Global

rank Maths Science

Score Rank Score Rank

Singapore 1 643 1 607 1

Japan 2 605 3 571 3

South Korea 3 607 2 565 4

Czech Republic 4 564 6 574 2

England 18 506 25 552 10

Thailand 20 522 20 525 21

Germany 22 509 23 531 19

France 23 538 13 498 28

United States 24 500 28 534 17

Anyway for 2006 Singapore had budgets of 10 Billion SGD for Defence, Almost 7 Billion for Education (and do not forget the massive private sector here outside of that) and just over 2 billion for Health

4 Million Singaporeans - do the math per capita - what is Thailands?

Edited December 2, 2007 by Prakanong

[younghusband]

I think that a sub in the Gulf and another in Andaman would help a lot against pirates, illegal fishing or oil smuggling. These are common threats faced by Malaysia and Singapore as well, they aren't going to attack each other.

If they can manage to deal with these threats together, then Thailand should chip in and do its own part, like providing a sub at the nothern end of Malacca straits.

F15s are at the end of their life, they needed to be replaced years ago. Thaksin would have bought Russian jets anyway, deciding to go with Nato compatible Gripens is probably a more sensible choice.

Given that the defence spending has shrank in the past ten years, the increase is a rather natural adjustment.

10% corruption charge is unavoidable whoever is in charge.

I doubt that Singapore government's spending on healthcare or education matches Thailand's. Do they even have a public healthcare system similar to 30 baht scheme? I think not. Prakhanong can clarify this for sure. In education Thailand is first in the region, I remember from the news. The problem is they waste most of it on infrastructure and don't spend enough on human resources.

The serious point is that defence expenditure needs to be geared to any country's priorities and economic resources.I agree regional co-operation is important to deal with piracy/illegal fishing though doubt high tech subs have much of a role to play.What is required in Thailand is a complete rethink, ideally subordinating the top brass to clear civilian control - though I fully understand why the army has resisted this up to now.As part of the rethink its necessary for example to ask why Thailand needs advanced strike aircraft at all:it's not enough to say that the existing F15s are antiquated.The elephant in the room is the continuing conflagration in the South, and this is where military effort should be concentrated, not footling around with irrelevant and expensive high technology.It's also irrelevant, even if true, that defence spending has decreased in the last 10 years.If a clear threat can be defined, there could be a case - but I have never seen it made.Finally you talk about the Thai armed forces as though it was a normal entity.It's not given its involvement in politics and business and (in the past anyway) vice.It is notorious for corruption and has one of the highest proportions of staff officers to enlisted men in the world.It needs root and branch reform as much as the police force.

[Plus]

Thailand spends 4-5% of the government budget on healthcare, Singaporean government appears to spend 1.8%, it also appears to spend a lot more on military.

Same story with education - the government spends quite a lot here.

Poor "outcomes" that you mention are not because they don't spend enough.

In the context of this thread the usual line that Thailand should invest more in health or education does not tell the whole picture. The overall picture is rather opposite if you want to compare it to neighboring countries.

[Plus]

What is required in Thailand is a complete rethink, ideally subordinating the top brass to clear civilian control..

Duh, would you like French fries with that, too?

It's not on the cards in the foreseeable future while the hardware updates must be dealt with now.

Burma, Malaysia and Singapore have all recently bought new fighter jests, why Thailand should lay low and compare itself to Laos?

Submarine would do just fine in monitoring traffic in the Straits, far better than small boat patrols they have been doing so far. I'm not an expert, and neither are you, but if someone says they need it, who am I to argue otherwise? Burin Kantanbutr?

[Prakanong]

Thailand spends 4-5% of the government budget on healthcare, Singaporean government appears to spend 1.8%, it also appears to spend a lot more on military.

Same story with education - the government spends quite a lot here.

Poor "outcomes" that you mention are not because they don't spend enough.

In the context of this thread the usual line that Thailand should invest more in health or education does not tell the whole picture. The overall picture is rather opposite if you want to compare it to neighboring countries.

Of course you are correct in that the amount of spending on these items is not the whole picture - how much is spent in real terms per capita would be more interesting to look at

There is no doubt the people of Singapore are on the whole healthier and better educated than their Thai counterparts.

Vis a vis Defence spending though - does Thailand really need to spend so much? - its not just health or education it could invest in!

[younghusband]

What is required in Thailand is a complete rethink, ideally subordinating the top brass to clear civilian control..

Duh, would you like French fries with that, too?

It's not on the cards in the foreseeable future while the hardware updates must be dealt with now.

Burma, Malaysia and Singapore have all recently bought new fighter jests, why Thailand should lay low and compare itself to Laos?

Submarine would do just fine in monitoring traffic in the Straits, far better than small boat patrols they have been doing so far. I'm not an expert, and neither are you, but if someone says they need it, who am I to argue otherwise? Burin Kantanbutr?

I agree that proper reform is not likely any time soon:that's hardly a reason for not reminding ourselves what the problem is.

Your rationale for fighter jets is probably very much what the air force top brass have in mind.Forgive me if I find the keeping up with the neighbours approach mildly puerile.You are incidentally very much mistaken if you believe the Singapore Government makes military spending decisions in this sloppy and half thought out way, although admittedly they do not have the complexity of having to calculate kick back calculations..You give the benefit of the doubt to armed forces "statements of need".History shows this is mistaken.

What's with this submarine obsession all of a sudden.Too many Tom Clancy readers on this forum perhaps.How about another few aircraft carriers while we're at it?

[Plus]

Need to buy new jets is pretty much accepted by everyone, including politicians on both sides. You can't just cancel their whole strategy, and even ask to rethink what to buy - they've already done that. Before Thaksin they were buying American, with Thaksin they were buying Russian, after Thaksin they are buying Swedish.

Wish they'd just buy the dam_n thing and get over it. Shopping was supposed to be the easiest part.

And two submarines cost nothing, I bet a lot cheaper than jets. Why make such a fuss over something that might turn out really useful? Or is it just to remind us about the junta?

>>>>

Singaporeans spend a lot on education or health from their own pockets. Altogether the expenditure on health, for example, is comparable - 4-5%, it's just that the government there is not as heavily involved as in Thailand. In absolute terms, however, Thailand spends probably a third of what Singaporeans do, per capita, and usually you get what you pay for, minus what is wasted on Thai corruption. I'm afraid if Thais want to really match their healthcare to Singaporean level, they either need to boost GDP by three times or open their own pockets, and also clean up their house - none of which will happen.

They also cannot increase government healthcare budget by three times to 15%.

>>>>

Back to military procurement - they need to pass it through NLA, right? You can argue that NLA is unelected, but look just a few years back - the parlament was a rubberstamp for Thaksin, and he made his cousin a supreme commander. Do you want to tell me how transparent and professional it was? Do you hope it will be any better after the elections?

NLA, despite being a "military puppet", has forced the government to withdraw at least three laws in less than a year, off the top of my head. In five years Thaksin was in power it didn't happen even once. Actually two laws had been returned back to parlament by lawyers at the Council of State, like a sloppy homework, because legally they didn't make any sense and were full of grammar and spelling mistakes.

[sriracha john]

I think that a sub in the Gulf and another in Andaman would help a lot against pirates, illegal fishing or oil smuggling. These are common threats faced by Malaysia and Singapore as well, they aren't going to attack each other.

If they can manage to deal with these threats together, then Thailand should chip in and do its own part, like providing a sub at the northern end of Malacca straits.

It would enhance the capabilities of the regional countries to do so more effectively. The Gulf sub as well could enhance the military's ability to improve its performance on the issues in that region as well, including the Deep South.

F15s are at the end of their life, they needed to be replaced years ago. Thaksin would have bought Russian jets anyway, deciding to go with Nato compatible Gripens is probably a more sensible choice.

Just to clarify, they are F-5's, whose technology goes back nearly 50 years. This Gripens deal actually began with Thaksin, but for some reason the Swedes weren't interested in receiving chickens for them, so the purchase was never completed.

Given that the defence spending has shrank in the past ten years, the increase is a rather natural adjustment.

You are absolutely correct. It was slashed 25% following '97 crisis and never really changed since, even during the supposedly economic boon times of the Thaksin regime years, whose contribution seemed to focus on the introduction of the ludicrous and mocked "barter deals" method of defense equipment procurement.

There is also a long historical reference to this normal ebb and flow of defense spending:

Since the 1950's, concerning Thai military modernization, the amounts of money budgeted and expended for defense varied somewhat according to whether or not a military regime controlled the government. Predictably, defense expenditures tended to rise moderately when military governments were in power, but even then the percentages of total government outlays for the armed forces were not inordinate when compared with defense expenditures in some other countries, nor were they high when compared with amounts spent on social needs, such as education and health.

- Global Security.org

BTW, These peaks and valleys in defense spending is common even with a super-power... America has the same pattern.

10% corruption charge is unavoidable whoever is in charge.

That also seems to be the case.

Edited December 2, 2007 by sriracha john

[younghusband]

Plus, a quick response to your last post in which I thought quite fair points were made.My main issue is not a political one, merely a wish that there should be a proper rethink on Thailand's defence priorities.OK I appreciate that in practice Thailand will always feel the need to have advanced jet fighters but it would be refreshing if someone in authority asked what exact purpose do they serve.As to submarines some of the justification provided seems a little off the wall, but as you suggest the acquisition costs are manageable (though as with the absurd aircraft carrier purchase one has to watch the running costs carefully).There's no harm in spelling out the challenges even if one is aware that little in practice will be done, chief of which is rationalisation of the bloated officer corps and a focus on the problems of the South.And for what it's worth the long term aim must be properly funded professional armed forces quite free from external business involvement.In the short term the need is for some clear hard thinking in which prioritisation of tasks is paramount.

I would also say that this problem is hardly unique to Thailand.Tradition and inertia often affects armed forces and the cliche that the last war is always being fought has some truth to it.And if you will forgive me I'd conclude by saying that the brave and original thinking needed is far more likely to come from senior officers not preoccupied with politics.

[Bagwan]

On a serious note, King Bhumibol used his birthday eve speech to admonish the navy for recently expressing the wish to buy a submarine, noting that submarines were unsuitable for Thailand. The Gulf of Thailand is a notoriously shallow body of water.

Game, set and match I believe.

Time to dust off another nice little earner - the Kra isthmus canal. Given that it has taken 40 years to build an airport, that is bursting at the seams after being opened for a year, constructing a canal will keep us in stitches for a century or so.

[Prakanong]

Malasia just announced again they do not want any help in the straits from anybody - in The Straits Times yesterday or the day before!

[sriracha john]

The Gulf of Thailand is a notoriously shallow body of water.

Someone should inform those crew-members riding in subs in the Gulf that the Gulf is a notoriously shallow body of water.

[Martin]

Interesting how yesterday's big speech took this up. My respect for the speaker is based on the facts that (1) he does think for his people, and for all of them, and (2) he looks well ahead into future, beyond the minutiae of the day.

(Were his words taken to heart, 'twould be better. Especially, if the the 1974 speech on 'security through sufficiency alongside any dash for growth' had been followed up, the tribulations of1997 would never have had to be suffered.)

What is seen as the long term threat, against which appropriately-armed forces may be needed?

It can't be a high-technology attack like the one that was carried out on Iraq. Rice fields and fish farms can't be taken over like oilfields. Having got rice fields and fish farms, it takes a huge number of people to operate them, unlike oil fields.

More likely is migration pressures of Asian people trying to slip in across borders or sneak in to beaches.

Epecially if China ends up with millions who have left the land for the cities, only to get caught by industrialisation's collapse.

There could also be lots of refugees from the collapsing economies of the industrialised West trying to flee from winter-heating bills that they can't afford (like me!), but the Immigration Police are capable of dealing with that.

I would have thought that a squadron of a modern version of the good old Sunderlands would be more effective than a submarine at informing surface interceptors of where they were needed to head off seaborne migrants.

[sriracha john]

On a serious note, King Bhumibol used his birthday eve speech to admonish the navy for recently expressing the wish to buy a submarine, noting that submarines were unsuitable for Thailand. The Gulf of Thailand is a notoriously shallow body of water.

Game, set and match I believe.

oops.. it's ok, though.. don't feel bad. You're not the first to be duped into drawing the wrong conclusion by relying on a

too-quick assessment of a translation by a paper.

I find it's often best to give it a couple of days to see things more fully translated and put into context...

btw, it also puts your earlier claims about Chinese subs in a better context, as well. Did you ever find those news article links???

Navy yet to decide on subs

Boonrawd says King's advice would be noted if plan proceeds

No decision has yet been made about buying submarines to beef up the Royal Navy, Defence Minister Boonrawd Somtas said yesterday in reaction to comments by His Majesty the King on defence purchases on Tuesday.

Boonrawd said a meeting would be held soon to discuss the matter and the ministry would adhere to the King's advice.

He said the ministry hadn't decided whether to purchase submarines from Russia or any other country yet.

During his birthday speech on Tuesday, the King remarked how the ministry should not be afraid to purchase military hardware - including submarines.

His Majesty said arms procurement should be left to the next government as the current administration was drawing to a close.

On submarines, he said: "A Russian one may cost just half the price of a German-made or a US-made one, but if we bought one from Russia, the US, for instance, might be upset. However, Russian submarines are very good."

However, Boonrawd insisted that procurement was dictated by the new Constitution and would be carried out over a span of 10 years with the budget already estimated for future Cabinets.

The new constitution stipulates that the armed forces will be adequately furbished with modern and hi-tech weapons, which was one of the controversial clauses under the charter.

Boonrawd said: "His Majesty's speech is in line with our concerns about the budget. With enough budget we can carry out our plans. However, if the budget is not adequate we shall apply the economic sufficiency principle and improve on existing wares for continued use.

"The arms procurement [for the future] is not too much. For example, the army request for procurement is just one third of what will enable troops to carry out their duties," he said.

Navy Commander Admiral Sathiraphan Keyanond, meanwhile, said he was ready to follow His Majesty's advice about the possibility of purchasing Russian-made submarines. He said trying to acquire cheap, but quality products was understandable.

A meeting to decide the matter would need to take place to consider the options, he said. "I can't decide about the matter alone," Sathiraphan said, adding that the meeting would take place after royal ceremonies this week.

China and the US are two countries the navy is reportedly considering buying hardware from, but Sathiraphan denied having any country in mind and said he would need to see the budget.

He said the navy would follow the King's advice to build larger patrol boats by itself.

- The Nation

[cclub75]

oops.. it's ok, though.. don't feel bad. You're not the first to be duped into drawing the wrong conclusion by relying on a

too-quick assessment of a translation by a paper.

Indeed. We had at least 3 or 4 differents versions, with differents and truncated quotes... Amazing.

I would take only one example, the famous submarine.

In Nation today :

Navy yet to decide on subs

During his birthday speech on Tuesday, the King remarked how the ministry should not be afraid to purchase military hardware - including submarines.

And in Bangkok Post (yesterday)

"On a serious note, King Bhumibol used his birthday eve speech to admonish the navy for recently expressing the wish to buy a submarine, noting that submarines were unsuitable for Thailand. The Gulf of Thailand is a notoriously shallow body of water."

Voila ! So how can we have a clear opinion after that ?

So, sub or not sub ? It remains a mystery ?

Edited December 5, 2007 by cclub75

[cm-happy]

whats next on the wish list? NUCLEAR WEAPONS!!!!

And whatever happened to the flap a while ago about Thailand developing their own missile manufacture and use capability??

[sriracha john]

I think it makes a difference the Nation article uses quotation marks to indicate direct quotes (translated).... where the Bangkok Post article does not. The BP is also much more brief on the topic and certainly seems a hurried attempt at paraphrasing.

Edited December 5, 2007 by sriracha john

[Prakanong]

Interesting how yesterday's big speech took this up. My respect for the speaker is based on the facts that (1) he does think for his people, and for all of them, and (2) he looks well ahead into future, beyond the minutiae of the day.

(Were his words taken to heart, 'twould be better. Especially, if the the 1974 speech on 'security through sufficiency alongside any dash for growth' had been followed up, the tribulations of1997 would never have had to be suffered.)

What is seen as the long term threat, against which appropriately-armed forces may be needed?

It can't be a high-technology attack like the one that was carried out on Iraq. Rice fields and fish farms can't be taken over like oilfields. Having got rice fields and fish farms, it takes a huge number of people to operate them, unlike oil fields.

More likely is migration pressures of Asian people trying to slip in across borders or sneak in to beaches.

Epecially if China ends up with millions who have left the land for the cities, only to get caught by industrialisation's collapse.

There could also be lots of refugees from the collapsing economies of the industrialised West trying to flee from winter-heating bills that they can't afford (like me!), but the Immigration Police are capable of dealing with that.

I would have thought that a squadron of a modern version of the good old Sunderlands would be more effective than a submarine at informing surface interceptors of where they were needed to head off seaborne migrants.

I bet you are ex Socialist Workers Party now looking for alternatives and have stumbled on another economic fallacy the sufficiency economy. Those that have it spend it and those that do not you can subsist.

Still predicting the Bangkok urban masses are going to return to the soil are we?

PS: After industrialisation collapses and we go back to the stone age who is going to build these advanced weapons?

[sriracha john]

Today's Bangkok Post certainly reads different then their initial article.

[Bagwan]

On submarines, he said: "A Russian one may cost just half the price of a German-made or a US-made one, but if we bought one from Russia, the US, for instance, might be upset. However, Russian submarines are very good."

55555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555

5555555555555555555555

Pssst. Wanna buy the Kursk?

This whole thread has descended to the level of knock about humour.

Shall I install asdic ( sonar for the US) on my boat I wonder. I should hate to collide with one of the many subs lurking in the Gulf. As for subs not being detected in the Gulf I wonder how many sail boats and aircraft carriers have asdic sets fitted. Come to that, how many carriers venture into the Gulf?

How soon will it be before a sub surfaces from below a fishing boat and kills most of the crew as happened off Hawii?

I have consulted a former C.O. of mine, an experienced destroyer captain, one of whose appointments was Training Commander at HMS VERNON, the RN torpedo and antisubmarine establishment, and he confirmed my view that the operation of subs in the Gulf and the Strait below the latitude of KL would be tantamount to suicide.

Edited December 6, 2007 by Bagwan

[Prakanong]

On submarines, he said: "A Russian one may cost just half the price of a German-made or a US-made one, but if we bought one from Russia, the US, for instance, might be upset. However, Russian submarines are very good."

55555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555

5555555555555555555555

Pssst. Wanna buy the Kursk?

This whole thread has descended to the level of knock about humour.

Shall I install asdic ( sonar for the US) on my boat I wonder. I should hate to collide with one of the many subs lurking in the Gulf. As for subs not being detected in the Gulf I wonder how many sail boats and aircraft carriers have asdic sets fitted. Come to that, how many carriers venture into the Gulf?

How soon will it be before a sub surfaces from below a fishing boat and kills most of the crew as happened off Hawii?

I have consulted a former C.O. of mine, an experienced destroyer captain, one of whose appointments was Training Commander at HMS VERNON, the RN torpedo and antisubmarine establishment, and he confirmed my view that the operation of subs in the Gulf and the Strait below the latitude of KL would be tantamount to suicide.

How far up the gulf did the Japanese send their sub's during the invasion of Singapore and Malaysia?

Were they used for the invasion of Thailand?

[Plus]

Are Russian subs are really crap as Bagwan seems to imply, or the best bang for the money? Given Bagwan's somewhat yahoo attitude I'd go with the King's estimate, he probably got it from the military advisers who must know a lot more on the topic than any of us.

[Prakanong]

Are Russian subs are really crap as Bagwan seems to imply, or the best bang for the money? Given Bagwan's somewhat yahoo attitude I'd go with the King's estimate, he probably got it from the military advisers who must know a lot more on the topic than any of us.

Not wanting to disparage anybody but Thai military advisors problably lean to where they get the biggest kickback!

[Plus]

Logically they should go for the most expensive equipment, then - 10% of a US sub vs 10% of a Russian sub.