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

[Prakanong]

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

The USA has very stiff laws about bribes though and actively goes after companies - it even goes after foreign companies ie the current investigation into BAE and the Saudi fighters!

Who is to say the bribe is has to be only 10% - maybe they have a bidding auction on that too!

Strange how many Thai military are "Unusually" rich - make theire western counterparts look positively potlss in many cases.

[cclub75]

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

Hum..

It seems that they were right.

Here is the new article from BKK Post (today).

"The navy will reconsider its plan to purchase submarines on the advice of His Majesty the King, navy commander Sathiraphan Keyanont said yesterday. The navy would pay heed to the King's advice on its arms procurement programmes, he said.

On the eve of his birthday, in his traditional address, the King made the observation that submarines might become stranded in mud near the coasts of Thailand. "

So : it seems that the King was indeed a little bit... upset with this idea of submarine...

And the point is : TNA (thai official news agency) and Nation... gave a truncated report of the King's speech. Voila.

Edited December 6, 2007 by cclub75

[sriracha john]

Voicing concern and admonishing are two very different reports.

btw, I'd never speculate that His Majesty was "upset"... especially when the speculation is based on such weak ground.

Edited December 7, 2007 by sriracha john

[Martin]

In post #55, 'Prakanong' said: "After industrialisation collapses and we go back to the stone age...."

I don't buy into that one, 'Prakanong'. "...go forward to an informed age..." would be nearer to my thinking.

I know that there are those who do fear a return to pre-civilisation, following the theme of Richard Duncan's "Road to the Olduvai Gorge", but they are overly pessimistic, in my opinion.

It seems to me that nothing is going to be uninvented, and that the present and future generations can negotiate their way through a lesser-oil phase, to a low-oil phase and on to a long-term minimal-oil era.

It takes little electricity (and hydro-generation will always be available to provide a bit of electricity) to keep the Internet going, using global fibre-optic communication. And many countries can expect to have enough to run a basic electrified-railway system to take the strain as internal-combustion engines get overly-expensive to run.

The response to the necessity to live with less oil consumption need only be a progressive reduction of the frenetic travel by individuals and of the transportation of their food and goods, that's all. People living much closer to their work, and doing their work much closer to where their food is produced, is all that will be basically required.

But it will mean that places that can produce that food without artificial fertiliser will be much more attractive to live in than they have been, and migration pressures will follow and some countries' defence/border control arrangements will need to respond.

In this thread, the underlying question is what threats should Thailand's forces expect, and be prepared to meet (allowing for the delivery-time and lifetime of military equipment) in 2020 to 2060?

I took note of the raising of the topic in the big speech because of the far-sightedness of the speaker.

What happens is that, for many of us as we get well on in life, the realisation occurs that the laws of birthrate and deathrate aren't going to change. They are going to remain at one per person; and this has implications about what one is not going to be around to see. So thinking about 'the big picture' for the next generations tends to happen.

I don't buy into the view that there'll be lots of resource wars. I think that Iraq is showing that they are not effective.

Hence I can't see the need for Thailand to beef up its abilities to fight off the air force, navy, and army of some other nation.

So presumably it is some different sort of national emergency, that may need to be coped with, that is being envisaged.

[Bagwan]

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.

:D

How many Russian sub disasters have there been over the years?

Read this http://www.jamesoberg.com/sub.html

and this

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~sanders/214...ub-history.html

Wouldn't that mean that the subs are poorly designed, just thrown together or that the Russian Navy doesn't have the skill to operate them? If the either of the former two are true, I rest my case. If the latter is true what chance would the RThN have? IMO the only thing that the RThN operate to any degree of efficiency is their golf complex at Plutaluang.

I wouldn't put too much store on the advice received by His Majesty from military advisors. It is those dumb clucks who wanted, no doubt for their own reasons, to buy the potential white elephants anyway.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Extracts from BKK Post, Thursday edition. If this doesn't reflect the true situation then blame Wassana Nanuam who put his name to the article.

On the eve of his birthday, in his traditional address, the King made the observation that submarines might become stranded in mud near the coasts of Thailand.

Navy Commander Admiral Sathiraphan Keyanont said that the King's observation that submarines might become stranded in mud might mean the Gulf of Thailand was not deep enough for submarines to operate in.

He didn't know that already? IMO this idiot isn't qualified to work on the Gosport Ferry.

Assume that the RThN did come into possession of a submarine how effective would they be in its operation? Does anybody think you can just climb into a submarine and off you go to wreak havoc? Read the following and ask yourself whether any Thai naval officer could successfully complete the course described in detail below. Where could they get the experience and knowledge to be accepted on a course of this type in the first place?

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/6...45/m/9881078106

[Plus]

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

The USA has very stiff laws about bribes though and actively goes after companies - it even goes after foreign companies ie the current investigation into BAE and the Saudi fighters!

Being patriotic Thais will make sure the bribe money stays in Thailand and so the US will have nothing to investigate.

I mean they are not going to bribe the Americans, what's the point in that - Thais will take the money themselves under "processing fee" or something.

[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.

:D

How many Russian sub disasters have there been over the years?

Read this http://www.jamesoberg.com/sub.html

and this

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~sanders/214...ub-history.html

Wouldn't that mean that the subs are poorly designed, just thrown together or that the Russian Navy doesn't have the skill to operate them?

Why don't you admit you know nothing about submarines? I don't know much either, but during the Cold war Russians apparently lost four submarines while Americans lost two. The probability of an incident is statistically insignificant considering number of subs and the number of years they have been operating.

If the US subs are more sophisticated (which I believe they are) - all the more chances for Thais to screw up.

[ando]

Bigger budget = bigger skim off for corrupt officials. The military has already increased their share of the GDP under this Military controlled government, (and given themselves substantial pay rises), now they want more. Jet fighters, submarines , tanks. Anything that costs money yields a percentage for the right people. Who cares if Thailand really needs them or not? Its the skim off opportunity for the big fish that counts rather than whats best for the countries security. Pigs with snouts in the trough before the game comes to an end. Get in while the going is good.

[Robski]

Submarine technology has advanced just a tad bit here and there over the past 60 years.

There are subs that operate in the Gulf of Thailand.... they're just not Thai.

So have sub detection techniques. USN can detect a sub from 300 miles and identify the class and its capabilities. Thailand who cannot get a set of traffic signals to work consistently, would be buying Chinese technology and presumably using it ineffectively.

Who/what would RThN attack?

I don't know, but it would be easy to sink a Thai submarine, just wait until they go underwater then go down and knock on the hatch!

Ok I'm leaving..

[Bagwan]

A popular homily during the dark days of WW2 in the UK, usually delivered in a Churchillian tone.

"If ever the country is overrun by the enemy, the Government and the Royal Family will piss off to Canada."

You can bet most of the Thai Service chiefs would leg it, with their ill gotten gains, to a place of safety should any unpleasantness break out.