Thai Air Force Insists On Buying Swedish Jet Fighters

[mdechgan]

I think the Gripens are what Thailand needs. They are cheap, and are sufficient for Thailand's needs. F16s are expensive and Su s are too big. I don't think we will be need Eurofighters anytime soon. F5s were designed in the 1950s and used in the 60s.

[TAWP]

Well that makes sense , all of Thailand's defence partners use either British, French or US weapon systems , yeah that makes lots of sense.

And the airplane is NATO-spec compliant.

[Rucharee]

I think the Gripens are what Thailand needs. They are cheap, and are sufficient for Thailand's needs. F16s are expensive and Su s are too big. I don't think we will be need Eurofighters anytime soon. F5s were designed in the 1950s and used in the 60s.

You must be the Electrolux salesman.

[newcanexpat41]

Actually its the political situation that got them into this purchase in the first place. At the time they had originally sought a replacement for the aging F-5 trainer/fighter aircraft they were still under military rule following Thaksin's overthrow. According to U.S. law they may not sell weapons or weapon systems to a country under military rule. So the wiser option of the F-16, which is currently in service was not available to them. However considering the amount of pictures of the new Gripen fighter that adorn buildings and Thai airforce literature.......one would think the project was further along. You see a Gripen picture everywhere on Thai airforce bases. If this project is still in the negotiation phase....the wiser choice would obviously be the F-16.......one airframe.....doing multiple roles in the Thai service. The expense of tools, training, parts. overhaul contracts etc for a measly 6-12 airframes seems to be an outragious waste of money. The role this aircraft plays is that of the agressor aircraft. It would seem that with an F-16 you would have a lot more experience for Thai airforce pilots to fall back on and assume pilot instructor roles. As well, all the infrastruture is already in place for the F-16.

This and the perchase of several airships which was recently announced really has me scratching my head about the lack of oversight of military spending in this country

[Payboy]

I think the Gripens are what Thailand needs. They are cheap, and are sufficient for Thailand's needs. F16s are expensive and Su s are too big. I don't think we will be need Eurofighters anytime soon. F5s were designed in the 1950s and used in the 60s.

The best part of buying Gripens is that there are superb flight options - between Stockholm and Geneva.

[sokal]

I think the Gripens are what Thailand needs. They are cheap, and are sufficient for Thailand's needs. F16s are expensive and Su s are too big. I don't think we will be need Eurofighters anytime soon. F5s were designed in the 1950s and used in the 60s.

The SU-35 is the same price tho, around 40 to 65 million dollars.

[mrbojangles]

I'm sure the Americans, Brits/France are pissed.

SAAB formed a partnership with BAE Systems named "Gripen International" to sell the Gripen on the world market.

[Priceless]

A major reason for the RTAF to choose the Gripen just might be that they already have six of them ordered (agreement signed on 11 February 2008). To choose another aircraft type for the second batch sounds somewhat less than brilliant.

A quote from "Defense Industry Daily" ( http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/thailand-buying-jas-39-gripens-awacs-04022/ ):

"It’s a small, agile fighter that can take off and land on highways, while carrying the latest technologies and weapons. It does very well against NATO’s best aircraft in exercises, comes with a reasonable price tag, and is built for low lifetime operating costs."

/ Priceless

[ThaksinKharma]

and in reality, who is thailand going to use them on ( defense or offense ) ?

Does it matter? There are not many countries at all in the whole world that don't have a military and all these countries' military have equipment and all this equipment costs money.

You could ask your question of any new military expenditure spent by any country in the world, but then again, it would be rather pointless as they all (except for a tiny few) have a military.

The Thai Air Force planes that had are relics from the 1950's. It's high time they were replaced.

You can't be defending the "toys for the boys" mentality of the Thai military, can you ??

This a relatively poor country and there are very many other needs that are far more deserving of limited government funds.

Education for one.

philw

To label a long overdue update of an important component of the military arsenal as "toys for boys" is nonsense. What I'm defending is the right for personnel in the military not to have work with antiquated, and thus extremely dangerous, equipment.

It's also a false argument to say that spending for education is contingent only upon the airman to continue to risk their lives unnecessarily on equipment that is 5 going on 6 decades old. They aren't mutually exclusive. Anyone with more than a day of military service, for any country, in their background is aware of the necessity for proper up-to-date equipment.

[Ricardo]

Any idea what the comparison with Romania means?

Huge price difference, also the South African Air Force paid $24 m. per plane but the Thais are spending an outrageous $74 m. per plane !

But surely former-PM Thaksin had agreed to pay for these planes in frozen-chicken ?

[womble]

It also helps that sweden is one of the only countries that legally allows business to be conducted by swedish based companies to foriegn businesses or governments when tea money is requested. The law in Sweden allows for this providing it is properly accounted for and the amount declared!

[Priceless]

It also helps that sweden is one of the only countries that legally allows business to be conducted by swedish based companies to foriegn businesses or governments when tea money is requested. The law in Sweden allows for this providing it is properly accounted for and the amount declared!

This is, to put it simply, NOT TRUE. Swedish laws concerning the giving and taking of bribes are very strict, regardless of whether the recipient is Swedish or foreign.

/ Priceless

[warfie]

Any idea what the comparison with Romania means?

Romanian aircraft need Heating which is cheaper than the air-conditioning needed for Thai aircraft?

F$%# knows...

[warfie]

Well that makes sense , all of Thailand's defence partners use either British, French or US weapon systems , yeah that makes lots of sense.

er... what difference does that make?

You think the weapon systems will have a language or cultural difference problem?

[mickj88]

It strikes me as a waste of money, Thailand doesn't need an air force at this moment in time.

It would make more sense to spend the money elsewhere on other things.

If they feel they need some air defense then why not let nato have an air base there or the US/ UK airforces have bases there.

oh i forgot they would not issue work permits for the foreign forces or if they did,the red tape required would take too long to get through !!

[jayboy]

and in reality, who is thailand going to use them on ( defense or offense ) ?

Does it matter? There are not many countries at all in the whole world that don't have a military and all these countries' military have equipment and all this equipment costs money.

You could ask your question of any new military expenditure spent by any country in the world, but then again, it would be rather pointless as they all (except for a tiny few) have a military.

The Thai Air Force planes that had are relics from the 1950's. It's high time they were replaced.

You can't be defending the "toys for the boys" mentality of the Thai military, can you ??

This a relatively poor country and there are very many other needs that are far more deserving of limited government funds.

Education for one.

philw

To label a long overdue update of an important component of the military arsenal as "toys for boys" is nonsense. What I'm defending is the right for personnel in the military not to have work with antiquated, and thus extremely dangerous, equipment.

It's also a false argument to say that spending for education is contingent only upon the airman to continue to risk their lives unnecessarily on equipment that is 5 going on 6 decades old. They aren't mutually exclusive. Anyone with more than a day of military service, for any country, in their background is aware of the necessity for proper up-to-date equipment.

Up to date and safe equipment is one thing (and I agree the importance) but the military's needs should be carefully justified, costed and finally approved (or not approved) by the civilian authorities - specifically the elected government of the day.In Thailand this procedure does not work well and major arms purchases are not always justified adequately.As to the specific Swedish purchase the fact that the Thais are paying up to 30% over the usual price scarcely seems to attract comment.But in reality as all but the incurably naive understand it is this "full" price that mainly drives the transaction.

[rubl]

To label a long overdue update of an important component of the military arsenal as "toys for boys" is nonsense. What I'm defending is the right for personnel in the military not to have work with antiquated, and thus extremely dangerous, equipment.

It's also a false argument to say that spending for education is contingent only upon the airman to continue to risk their lives unnecessarily on equipment that is 5 going on 6 decades old. They aren't mutually exclusive. Anyone with more than a day of military service, for any country, in their background is aware of the necessity for proper up-to-date equipment.

Up to date and safe equipment is one thing (and I agree the importance) but the military's needs should be carefully justified, costed and finally approved (or not approved) by the civilian authorities - specifically the elected government of the day.In Thailand this procedure does not work well and major arms purchases are not always justified adequately.As to the specific Swedish purchase the fact that the Thais are paying up to 30% over the usual price scarcely seems to attract comment.But in reality as all but the incurably naive understand it is this "full" price that mainly drives the transaction.

The 'paying upto 30% over usual price' has been alleged, but not proven. Numbers have been compared, but not contents.

[Johpa]

(Probably no coincidence that someone with very close ties to people who are interested in buying planes is a regular visitor to a country that sells planes.)

Yes...., well....just about all the major players are hedging their bets now these days.

[TAWP]

The Gripen has no set cost, each contract is tailored to each buyer.

A lot of the cost is dependant on the amount of lateral investments needed, the amount of training of crew in both Sweden and in Thailand that is needed etc. Often with the airplane a big 'support-package' is tailored to each customer country and the price is set accordingly.

[Johpa]

The Gripen has no set cost, each contract is tailored to each buyer.

A lot of the cost is dependant on the amount of lateral investments needed,....

Ah,"lateral investment", the newest euphemism to cover the endemic bribery that is part and parcel of the international arms business. I got a first hand glimpse, and a huge laugh, last January at the SHOT show in Las Vegas where the Feds hauled off Smith & Wesson's VP of sales in handcuffs, and we are only talking small arms here. The bigger guys rarely get caught as the funds are skillfully hidden by lawyers and accountants within purchase orders and contracts.

[philw]

and in reality, who is thailand going to use them on ( defense or offense ) ?

Does it matter? There are not many countries at all in the whole world that don't have a military and all these countries' military have equipment and all this equipment costs money.

You could ask your question of any new military expenditure spent by any country in the world, but then again, it would be rather pointless as they all (except for a tiny few) have a military.

The Thai Air Force planes that had are relics from the 1950's. It's high time they were replaced.

You can't be defending the "toys for the boys" mentality of the Thai military, can you ??

This a relatively poor country and there are very many other needs that are far more deserving of limited government funds.

Education for one.

philw

To label a long overdue update of an important component of the military arsenal as "toys for boys" is nonsense. What I'm defending is the right for personnel in the military not to have work with antiquated, and thus extremely dangerous, equipment.

It's also a false argument to say that spending for education is contingent only upon the airman to continue to risk their lives unnecessarily on equipment that is 5 going on 6 decades old. They aren't mutually exclusive. Anyone with more than a day of military service, for any country, in their background is aware of the necessity for proper up-to-date equipment.

Thank you for the smile..................

Can you tell me in what scenarios the Thai military can effectively use their very expensive hi tech gear ??

Do we need submarines so we exercise with our aircraft carrier that cannot go sea and has knackered Harriers on it ???

New F16's to bomb the muslim "insurgents " ( not terrorists like the red shirts )in the south ??

Gripen's ( all 6 of them ) to take on Singapore perhaps ??

Fight China ???

Even with F16's, the last contested border dispute with laos ( no F16's ) did not exactly go the way the Thai military wanted.

To answer your point, helicopters and better equipment of course, yes.

High budget items with little practical real use, massive kickbacks and corruption, no thank you.

Toys for the boys it is, without doubt.

[ThaksinKharma]

Does it matter? There are not many countries at all in the whole world that don't have a military and all these countries' military have equipment and all this equipment costs money.

You could ask your question of any new military expenditure spent by any country in the world, but then again, it would be rather pointless as they all (except for a tiny few) have a military.

The Thai Air Force planes that had are relics from the 1950's. It's high time they were replaced.

You can't be defending the "toys for the boys" mentality of the Thai military, can you ??

This a relatively poor country and there are very many other needs that are far more deserving of limited government funds.

Education for one.

philw

To label a long overdue update of an important component of the military arsenal as "toys for boys" is nonsense. What I'm defending is the right for personnel in the military not to have work with antiquated, and thus extremely dangerous, equipment.

It's also a false argument to say that spending for education is contingent only upon the airman to continue to risk their lives unnecessarily on equipment that is 5 going on 6 decades old. They aren't mutually exclusive. Anyone with more than a day of military service, for any country, in their background is aware of the necessity for proper up-to-date equipment.

Can you tell me in what scenarios the Thai military can effectively use their very expensive hi tech gear ??

Do we need submarines so we exercise with our aircraft carrier that cannot go sea and has knackered Harriers on it ???

New F16's to bomb the muslim "insurgents " ( not terrorists like the red shirts )in the south ??

Gripen's ( all 6 of them ) to take on Singapore perhaps ??

Fight China ???

Even with F16's, the last contested border dispute with laos ( no F16's ) did not exactly go the way the Thai military wanted.

To answer your point, helicopters and better equipment of course, yes.

High budget items with little practical real use, massive kickbacks and corruption, no thank you.

Toys for the boys it is, without doubt.

As it's apparent your knowledge of military operations is non-existent as your reactionary, exaggerated comments, eg. fight China, are silly, I feel that investing the energy to explain the multitude of potential scenarios would likely fall on deaf ears, anyway.

It's not something to be ashamed of to be un-knowledgeable about a topic, but I'm sorry to say that I don't feel like getting into teaching someone the basics of national defense used by a majority of the world's nations and the specific capabilities of military hardware they use to that end.

Perhaps someone with more patience will undertake the daunting task.

[philw]

To label a long overdue update of an important component of the military arsenal as "toys for boys" is nonsense. What I'm defending is the right for personnel in the military not to have work with antiquated, and thus extremely dangerous, equipment.

It's also a false argument to say that spending for education is contingent only upon the airman to continue to risk their lives unnecessarily on equipment that is 5 going on 6 decades old. They aren't mutually exclusive. Anyone with more than a day of military service, for any country, in their background is aware of the necessity for proper up-to-date equipment.

Can you tell me in what scenarios the Thai military can effectively use their very expensive hi tech gear ??

Do we need submarines so we exercise with our aircraft carrier that cannot go sea and has knackered Harriers on it ???

New F16's to bomb the muslim "insurgents " ( not terrorists like the red shirts )in the south ??

Gripen's ( all 6 of them ) to take on Singapore perhaps ??

Fight China ???

Even with F16's, the last contested border dispute with laos ( no F16's ) did not exactly go the way the Thai military wanted.

To answer your point, helicopters and better equipment of course, yes.

High budget items with little practical real use, massive kickbacks and corruption, no thank you.

Toys for the boys it is, without doubt.

As it's apparent your knowledge of military operations is non-existent as your reactionary, exaggerated comments, eg. fight China, are silly, I feel that investing the energy to explain the multitude of potential scenarios would likely fall on deaf ears, anyway.

It's not something to be ashamed of to be un-knowledgeable about a topic, but I'm sorry to say that I don't feel like getting into teaching someone the basics of national defense used by a majority of the world's nations and the specific capabilities of military hardware they use to that end.

Perhaps someone with more patience will undertake the daunting task.

Very articulate, well done, but you don't make any points other than sarcasm.

Take a break and have some warm milk before you get over tired and emotional.

Suggest you research the definition of "reactionary", you might surprise yourself.

Am I correct in assuming you are ex or serving USA military ?

philw

[TAWP]

philw >> You are way off target with your comments on TK and clueless about nations defence forces in general.

Most nations don't buy units due to the prospect of going to war.

[Rucharee]

philw >> You are way off target with your comments on TK and clueless about nations defence forces in general.

Most nations don't buy units due to the prospect of going to war.

Just like you don't get married, just because you want to have children.

[BlueTerrace]

"He added that the matter at hand should not be viewed as a political issue because the military does not wish to be involved in politics"

PRICELESS!

yeah i loved this one too..

[surayu]

Overcharged for the purchase? no needs for them? you are wrong again! do you have any idea of how much fuel a tuk tuk from Pukhet (they got the contract because they seems to have a special relationship with the military) to Sweden and back will consume? they choose this particular jet that fits the highways for this and many other reasons, no more traffic on the road if you are in one of them (they will never fly), just blow off that traffic light if it dares to turn red again...

[balo]

The Norwegian government turned down the offer from Gripen a few months ago and went for The Joint Strike Fighter. The Swedes was very dissapointed but they just couldnt deliver the best aircrafts.

The reason for this we can read in the news:

"The Joint Strike Fighter was considered to be the better of the two candidates regarding intelligence and surveillance, counter air, air interdict and anti-surface warfare"

Also the basic unit price for the JSF was considered to be lower than the basic price for the Gripen. Norway will pay about $2.5 billion for 48 aircraft or $52 million per unit. This is the no frills price," the source said.

Edited July 19, 2010 by balo

[Priceless]

The Norwegian government turned down the offer from Gripen a few months ago and went for The Joint Strike Fighter. The Swedes was very dissapointed but they just couldnt deliver the best aircrafts.

The reason for this we can read in the news:

"The Joint Strike Fighter was considered to be the better of the two candidates regarding intelligence and surveillance, counter air, air interdict and anti-surface warfare"

Also the basic unit price for the JSF was considered to be lower than the basic price for the Gripen. Norway will pay about $2.5 billion for 48 aircraft or $52 million per unit. This is the no frills price," the source said.

A couple of quotes from Wikipedia ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II ) with my comments:

"The F-35 was evaluated along with JAS 39 Gripen by the Norwegian Future Combat Aircraft Capability Project as a replacement for the F-16s currently in-service. On 20 November 2008, the government released a statement saying it will support buying F-35s for the Royal Norwegian Air Force instead of the Gripen NG."

Comment: That's more than 1½ years ago, hardly "a few months".

"The United States intends to buy a total of 2,443 aircraft for an estimated US$323 billion, making it the most expensive defense program ever."

Comment: That turns out at 132 MUSD per aircraft. If Norway will get theirs at 52 MUSD per aircraft, it seems to me that the "no frills price" is probably excluding "frills" like engines, avionics etc . It appears that the F-35 will be a very capable aircraft, but its costs have been soaring (even since Norway declared its intention) and several of the participating countries are said to be reconsidering their purchases because of this.

/ Priceless

[mdechgan]

The Gripen is all the RTAF needs. It is small and light about the same size as the F5, can land and take off almost anywhere as long as the road is 800 meters long and can be serviced with 3 people and a laptop.

The F5s had to be phased out because they were old.

F16s I think are too expensive (like we were going to get a good deal from the Lockheed U.S.) and too much maintenance and are are also 30 year old design.

Sus are too big and heavy.

Don't even mention the JSF.

We only need an expeditionary point defence fighter and that is what the Gripen gives us. Also a nice SAAB radar package also.

Is the Gripen the best plane? No. Politically we had no choice. We couldn't buy US because that would have irked the EU, couldn't buy Russian because that would have irked the U.S. So buy from the EU so we could have less export tariffs for prawns.

I don't see us needed JDAM, stealth or beyond visual range air to air capabilities.