Thai Navy Seeking Cabinet Nod For Submarines, Frigates Upgrade

[webfact]

Navy seeking Cabinet nod for submarines, frigates upgrade

By The Nation

The Navy is pushing for Cabinet endorsement of projects that require funding of more than Bt16 billion, to buy six used submarines and to upgrade two of its frigates.

Navy commander-in-chief Admiral Kamthon Phumhirun is seeking Cabinet approval of the purchase of six second-hand submarines from the German navy at a cost of Bt7.6 billion, a source said yesterday. He hopes to get a green light before Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva dissolves the House of Representatives, expected in early May.

Defence Minister Prawit Wongsuwan is expected to submit the Navy's purchase plan to the Cabinet in a week or two. At a meeting on April 25, the Cabinet approved the Navy plan in principle, as outlined in a classified document.

The plan to buy used German-made submarines has drawn both criticism and scepticism about their worthiness for the job. The subs - being decommissioned by the German navy - are more than 30 years old but are expected to be good for another 10 years.

The Navy is also seeking approval of a Bt7.5-billion budget to upgrade its frigates, the Taksin and the Naresuan. Plans involve equipping the ships with anti-submarine systems, aviation-defence units and additional weapons.

The source said the upgrade would also see data-link systems installed on the frigates to allow smooth communication between the combat vessels, the new Swedish-made Gripen jet fighters to be acquired by the Air Force, jet fighters of allied countries and other ships of the Navy.

However, in the Navy's current request, a data-link system is not part of the upgrade plan - although the suggested budget of Bt7.5 billion is Bt700 million higher than the estimate for a previous Navy project that included a data-link system.

The Navy also plans to upgrade the HTMS Chakri Naruebet at a cost of about Bt1 billion.

-- The Nation 2011-04-05

[RKASA]

I can see the upgrading of frigates as a normal part of a proper navy - but they would be better off defense wise getting an additional frigate and more land based anti sub aircraft then buying toy subs which are slow, easy to detect by even lesser navies, and at best one time mine sweeps. If the subs are such a great defense tool why are they being sold like scrape - they could still serve the German navy another ten years if it were the case. Of course any ship improperly commanded is a mine sweeper once.

I don't want to be aboard her when the cooks turn out the bala for som tom.:jap:

[Buchholz]

I can see the upgrading of frigates as a normal part of a proper navy - but they would be better off defense wise getting an additional frigate and more land based anti sub aircraft then buying toy subs which are slow, easy to detect by even lesser navies, and at best one time mine sweeps. If the subs are such a great defense tool why are they being sold like scrape - they could still serve the German navy another ten years if it were the case. Of course any ship improperly commanded is a mine sweeper once.

I don't want to be aboard her when the cooks turn out the bala for som tom.:jap:

Not sure where you got the idea that any sub, especially a diesel boat, is easily detected. Could you share with us where that comes from, because no one else says that.

Other nations, like Israel and Denmark, have purchased these same subs as Thailand.

The Germans are not keeping them for themselves because they've developed a newer and different type of boat, the 212, for their own needs.

[phiphidon]

Not sure where you got the idea that any sub, especially a diesel boat, is easily detected. Could you share with us where that comes from, because no one else says that.

Other nations, like Israel and Denmark, have purchased these same subs as Thailand.

The Germans are not keeping them for themselves because they've developed a newer and different type of boat, the 212, for their own needs.

The maximum depth in the Gulf of Thailand is around 85 metres. The average depth in the Andaman Sea is 870 metres. It would follow that taking this article http://www.fas.org/m...s/ship/deep.htm as a reference, the Gulf of Thailand is not the best place to run diesel submarine operations without being detected (unless they do not move and what is the point of that). This leaves the Andaman Sea.

So where to base these 6 submarines, it doesn't seem very sensible to base them in the Gulf of Thailand when the most likely operational area is to be the Andaman Sea? The facility at Pang Nga? Only has 1 berth capable of taking a vessel of frigate size, not 6 submarines and the necessary logistical back up. The landing piers at Patong and Makham Bays? OK for liberty runs but that's it and where would the Yanks go when they're in town? And that's it.

Even allowing for an expansion of an existing naval base on the Andaman Sea at more expense, what would these submarines do? Depending upon their endurance and back up logistics they could patrol the Burmese, Malaysian and Indonesian coasts (possibly India and Sri Lanka as well?). But why?

If I can ask these questions with a minimum of research I would hope that Abhisit and his advisors do a lot more research before approving yet another Defence Budget white elephant.

Or could it be that someone somehwere wants to keep the military happy and on side and to line pockets once again? Nine Iron rules on corruption, don't make me laugh.

[jayboy]

If I can ask these questions with a minimum of research I would hope that Abhisit and his advisors do a lot more research before approving yet another Defence Budget white elephant.

Or could it be that someone somehwere wants to keep the military happy and on side and to line pockets once again? Nine Iron rules on corruption, don't make me laugh.

The rationale for the purchase of these submarines has been widely discussed and documented.You are right they make little military or strategic sense.Most educated Thais know the reason for the purchase of this old fashioned and expensive (both capital and running costs) junk which is why it has been so widely commented on adversely in both Thai and English language editorials, an extreme example of the politics and corruption associated with military procurement in Thailand.

Nevertheless there is no item of Thai military procurement however stupid, corrupt, politically driven or simply inappropriate that will not find a defender on this forum.Okay it's normally the same person.Oops I just noted he already chipped in with his endorsement.

[RKASA]

I can see the upgrading of frigates as a normal part of a proper navy - but they would be better off defense wise getting an additional frigate and more land based anti sub aircraft then buying toy subs which are slow, easy to detect by even lesser navies, and at best one time mine sweeps. If the subs are such a great defense tool why are they being sold like scrape - they could still serve the German navy another ten years if it were the case. Of course any ship improperly commanded is a mine sweeper once.

I don't want to be aboard her when the cooks turn out the bala for som tom.:jap:

Not sure where you got the idea that any sub, especially a diesel boat, is easily detected. Could you share with us where that comes from, because no one else says that.

Other nations, like Israel and Denmark, have purchased these same subs as Thailand.

The Germans are not keeping them for themselves because they've developed a newer and different type of boat, the 212, for their own needs.

21 years of sea service - they are being replaced - that says much to begin with. If other countries jumped off a bridge Thailand should jump too?. Many others already have up to date surface fleets and their spending habits are not the issue - the issue here is about better spending and not wasting resources. "they would be better off defense wise getting an additional frigate and more land based anti sub aircraft" Thailand needs nether a sub nor an air ship that can't fly on windy days. Thailand needs to protect their surface fleet they have and count on remaining force with numbers. Add surface ships and upgrade others. Anti sub helicopters aboard updated frigates and land based aircraft will do a better job for the money as well as being a useful resource beyond pure naval activities.

Please explain for us beyond reading about Denmarks spending habits the real benefits and uses as compared to the option presented. Did they buy them because they are so stealth or maybe just a bit better then their old ones they could afford in the first place - where do you get the assumption they were purchased as stealthy platforms anyway - is that what they said? they can't be detected.

Look we know Thailand's navy has pride and the total reasoning is - other ASEAN countries have one I want one too. Pity the poor soles that will be required to serve aboard them.

The fact that most places they would be - most of the time - are where they could be detected by the naked eye and or satellites doesn't help the case for having them here in the first place - which as I am sure you did notice is not Denmark or Israel.:jap:

[techno]

Why dont the Thai Navy contact the British Ministry of Defence as they are scrapping aircraft carrier Ark Royal and the Harrier Jump Jet. Maybe they could also get some Tornadoes as well. All going cheap and proven in time of crisis. Why does Thailand need submarines?

[Buchholz]

Not sure where you got the idea that any sub, especially a diesel boat, is easily detected. Could you share with us where that comes from, because no one else says that.

Other nations, like Israel and Denmark, have purchased these same subs as Thailand.

The Germans are not keeping them for themselves because they've developed a newer and different type of boat, the 212, for their own needs.

The maximum depth in the Gulf of Thailand is around 85 metres. The average depth in the Andaman Sea is 870 metres. It would follow that taking this article http://www.fas.org/m...s/ship/deep.htm as a reference, the Gulf of Thailand is not the best place to run diesel submarine operations without being detected (unless they do not move and what is the point of that). This leaves the Andaman Sea.

Nice link. What it describes are the ideal or "best" conditions to operate a boat in.

Yes, the Gulf of Siam is not the best condition to operate boats in. It by no means an indication that subs are "easy to detect" because they are not, even when operating in less than the "best" conditions.

It's a huge leap to say that just because it is not the best condition, the body of water is excluded from inclusion in the discussion.

btw, when attempts are being made to detect a sub, a common technique is to do precisely what you mentioned, they "do not move".

If I can ask these questions with a minimum of research I would hope that Abhisit and his advisors do a lot more research

Yes, you can ask questions with a minimum of research. With a bit more research and/or experience, the answers to those questions are available. What helps is not making leaps that don't necessarily follow, such as, for example, determining that because Gulf of Siam is less than the best condition for a sub to operate in, it's easy to detect subs inside of it.

.

Edited April 5, 2011 by Buchholz

[jayboy]

Yes, you can ask questions with a minimum of research. With a bit more research and/or experience, the answers to those questions are available. What helps is not making leaps that don't necessarily follow, such as, for example, determining that because Gulf of Siam is less than the best condition for a sub to operate in, it's easy to detect subs inside of it.

Ah the old warrant officer wisdom we remember so well from long ago.As usual some reasonably convincing technical detail but no recognition of the looming problem - these old subs aren't needed at all certainly at the price being paid.

[Buchholz]

what would these submarines do? Depending upon their endurance and back up logistics they could patrol the Burmese, Malaysian and Indonesian coasts (possibly India and Sri Lanka as well?). But why?

The tasks a sub can perform are many, including anti-ship operations, anti-sub operations, electronic information gathering, and undetected launching of special operations forces ashore.

Any and all of which could be significantly beneficial and strategic for Thailand to have in a myriad of circumstances.

[Buchholz]

Not sure where you got the idea that any sub, especially a diesel boat, is easily detected. Could you share with us where that comes from, because no one else says that.

Other nations, like Israel and Denmark, have purchased these same subs as Thailand.

The Germans are not keeping them for themselves because they've developed a newer and different type of boat, the 212, for their own needs.

21 years of sea service - they are being replaced - that says much to begin with. If other countries jumped off a bridge Thailand should jump too?.

By the same adage, if Israel and Denmark, amongst other countries, bought these subs, would Thailand jump in and buy them, as well?

Yes, they are old, but from what I gather, the refurbishing they did to them was extensive and has added significant length to their lifespan. Well-made subs, and while not knowing all the specifics of this particular sub, I would give Germany the benefit of the doubt as their other sea craft are world-class, are tremendously sturdy and resilient and older subs are operating in all the oceans of the world this very day.

where do you get the assumption they were purchased as stealthy platforms anyway - is that what they said? they can't be detected.

Any sub is a stealthy platform. The varying levels of that stealth are determined by the sub's specs, but they all stealthy compared to surface ships.

The fact that most places they would be - most of the time - are where they could be detected by the naked eye and or satellites doesn't help the case for having them here in the first place - which as I am sure you did notice is not Denmark or Israel.:jap:

They would only be "detected by the naked eye and or satellites" when they are on the surface. If they are like most subs that operate around the world, that time would be a very small fractional amount of the time that they are operating.

btw, the other countries I mentioned were only mentioned because they apparently felt that these subs fit their needs and that given their Western standards of quality as well as weapons procurement, they mustn't be total junk being exclusively bought for corruption purposes only.

.

Edited April 5, 2011 by Buchholz

[jayboy]

Any and all of which could be significantly beneficial and strategic for Thailand to have in a myriad of circumstances.

Care to be more specific with some "what if" scenarios? Are the powerful Burmese or Cambodian navies making threatening overtures?

Has Thailand changed its kowtowing policy to address the threat of the only superpower, China?

What's this electronic information gathering.The 1950's comical Thailand fleet at Sattahip all have UBC dishes.Is that what you mean - more cable channels?

The funniest possibility you mention is "special operations."The mind boggles.

At some level even you must be aware your post is ridiculous.

[Buchholz]

^ If it's possible for you to make a post without such inflammatory overtures, I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have to the best of my knowledge.

If you're just baiting for argument's sake, like your other offerings, they'll be ignored as you've instigated quite enough post deletions and squabbling over the past 2 weeks.

[beano2274]

Who is going to crew these Submarines? Thailand has not got trained Sailors at all yet. The training of Captains and the crew will take a long time, during this time they will be supervised by the Germans (I would hope so).

Spare parts will be made available from 2 of the other subs, but what happens if you need more parts, will P down the road bash a couple of engines up.

I would also be looking at buying the Ark Royal and a few harriers, even could get a couple of Subs from the UK.

Edited April 5, 2011 by beano2274

[phiphidon]

Not sure where you got the idea that any sub, especially a diesel boat, is easily detected. Could you share with us where that comes from, because no one else says that.

Other nations, like Israel and Denmark, have purchased these same subs as Thailand.

The Germans are not keeping them for themselves because they've developed a newer and different type of boat, the 212, for their own needs.

The maximum depth in the Gulf of Thailand is around 85 metres. The average depth in the Andaman Sea is 870 metres. It would follow that taking this article http://www.fas.org/m...s/ship/deep.htm as a reference, the Gulf of Thailand is not the best place to run diesel submarine operations without being detected (unless they do not move and what is the point of that). This leaves the Andaman Sea.

Nice link. What it describes are the ideal or "best" conditions to operate a boat in.

Yes, the Gulf of Siam is not the best condition to operate boats in. It by no means an indication that subs are "easy to detect" because they are not, even when operating in less than the "best" conditions.

It's a huge leap to say that just because it is not the best condition, the body of water is excluded from inclusion in the discussion.

btw, when attempts are being made to detect a sub, a common technique is to do precisely what you mentioned, they "do not move".

If I can ask these questions with a minimum of research I would hope that Abhisit and his advisors do a lot more research

Yes, you can ask questions with a minimum of research. With a bit more research and/or experience, the answers to those questions are available. What helps is not making leaps that don't necessarily follow, such as, for example, determining that because Gulf of Siam is less than the best condition for a sub to operate in, it's easy to detect subs inside of it.

.

Much as I appreciate your trying to read what is inside my head I did not add the reference to indicate that subs are easy to detect, particularly if they are dead still in the water. However, it will be easier to detect in the gulf of thailand than the andaman sea. Hence my extending the discussion to include the Andaman Sea as the more obvious place for these submarines to operate in. I then pointed out the impracticalities of basing the subs on the West coast.

I then more pointedly asked the question - What does the Thai Navy need submarines for? I don't care how much research is put into it but I'd love to see the answer. Do you know why?

[Awohalitsiktoli]

They do not need submarines! What a total waste of money for a developing country.

[Buchholz]

Not sure where you got the idea that any sub, especially a diesel boat, is easily detected. Could you share with us where that comes from, because no one else says that.

Other nations, like Israel and Denmark, have purchased these same subs as Thailand.

The Germans are not keeping them for themselves because they've developed a newer and different type of boat, the 212, for their own needs.

The maximum depth in the Gulf of Thailand is around 85 metres. The average depth in the Andaman Sea is 870 metres. It would follow that taking this article http://www.fas.org/m...s/ship/deep.htm as a reference, the Gulf of Thailand is not the best place to run diesel submarine operations without being detected (unless they do not move and what is the point of that). This leaves the Andaman Sea.

Nice link. What it describes are the ideal or "best" conditions to operate a boat in.

Yes, the Gulf of Siam is not the best condition to operate boats in. It by no means an indication that subs are "easy to detect" because they are not, even when operating in less than the "best" conditions.

It's a huge leap to say that just because it is not the best condition, the body of water is excluded from inclusion in the discussion.

btw, when attempts are being made to detect a sub, a common technique is to do precisely what you mentioned, they "do not move".

Yes, you can ask questions with a minimum of research. With a bit more research and/or experience, the answers to those questions are available. What helps is not making leaps that don't necessarily follow, such as, for example, determining that because Gulf of Siam is less than the best condition for a sub to operate in, it's easy to detect subs inside of it.

Much as I appreciate your trying to read what is inside my head I did not add the reference to indicate that subs are easy to detect, particularly if they are dead still in the water. However, it will be easier to detect in the gulf of thailand than the andaman sea. Hence my extending the discussion to include the Andaman Sea as the more obvious place for these submarines to operate in. I then pointed out the impracticalities of basing the subs on the West coast.

I then more pointedly asked the question - What does the Thai Navy need submarines for? I don't care how much research is put into it but I'd love to see the answer. Do you know why?

My post was in a reply to a member who said it was easy to detect subs, hence when you replied to my reply, I presumed your post was on that topic of discussion.

Still, while it may be "easier" as you say (and there's that word creeping in again), it is not "easy" in either the Gulf of Siam or the Andaman to detect a sub.

As for why a country may wish to have submarine capability, that was addressed in Post #10.

[Buchholz]

They do not need submarines! What a total waste of money for a developing country.

There's no shortage of other countries you may classify in that manner that have subs, like Algeria, Bulgaria, Chile, Ecuador, Egypt, Indonesia, Malaysia, Peru, Venezuela, and Vietnam.

http://www.hazegray.org/worldnav/

You may be surprised to learn that 43 nations have subs.

.

Edited April 5, 2011 by Buchholz

[phiphidon]

My post was in a reply to a member who said it was easy to detect subs, hence when you replied to my reply, I presumed your post was on that topic of discussion.

Still, while it may be "easier" as you say (and there's that word creeping in again), it is not "easy" in either the Gulf of Siam or the Andaman to detect a sub.

As for why a country may wish to have submarine capability, that was addressed in Post #10.

What was "addressed" in your post No.10 were your thoughts on why the submarines are needed - ever thought for a moment that you could be wrong? The proposed purchase and Abhisits endorsement of that purchase has raised a lot of comment out in the real world beyond TV - mainly if not wholly cynical about the whole thing, even in papers that are generally seen to be organs of the state. Do you not accept that some things that this government do or say are indefensible, even by the most die hard apologists of the teflon don?

[bangon04]

"The Navy is also seeking approval of a Bt7.5-billion budget to upgrade its frigates, the Taksin and the Naresuan. Plans involve equipping the ships with anti-submarine systems, aviation-defence units and additional weapons.

Sounds very sensible if the Navy is going to start playing with submarines and their new Gripen fighters. It would be a tragedy if after all this expense they one day accidentally rubbed each other out.........

[animatic]

As

Buchholz said, an 80's electric diesel boat can be damned quiet, and up dating the electronics is more the issue for staying current, the hull is more than functional as is.

Unless you are going super stealth or needing lots of nuclear missile silos an 80's era boat is still a viable platform for recon and discreet observation, and torpedos as a deterrent if need be.

It can also be a silent underwater listening net vs smuggler subs... lord knows there are a number of products that could enter or exit Thailand underwater that would make that route viable. Or those doing underwater mineral or energy exploration outside where they have the rights to...

I also happen to know there are retired navy submarine professionals on this forum, and some may pipe in as such, or not stating their credentials, but I doubt I am will be contradicted by any of them.

Edited April 5, 2011 by animatic

[animatic]

They do not need submarines! What a total waste of money for a developing country.

There's no shortage of other countries you may classify in that manner that have subs, like Algeria, Bulgaria, Chile, Ecuador, Egypt, Indonesia, Malaysia, Peru, Venezuela, and Vietnam.

http://www.hazegray.org/worldnav/

You may be surprised to learn that 43 nations have subs.

.

And those would just be the 'national subs' as opposed to private subs of various sizes and facilities. In south america they home build subs for smuggling, and there are regular attempts world wide to buy larger ones by subterfuge for black market resale.

Edited April 5, 2011 by animatic

[Buchholz]

My post was in a reply to a member who said it was easy to detect subs, hence when you replied to my reply, I presumed your post was on that topic of discussion.

Still, while it may be "easier" as you say (and there's that word creeping in again), it is not "easy" in either the Gulf of Siam or the Andaman to detect a sub.

As for why a country may wish to have submarine capability, that was addressed in Post #10.

What was "addressed" in your post No.10 were your thoughts on why the submarines are needed

What actually was addressed in my post was why a country might wish to have subs.

I never stated Thailand "needed" subs, merely why they may want to have them.

- ever thought for a moment that you could be wrong? The proposed purchase and Abhisits endorsement of that purchase has raised a lot of comment out in the real world beyond TV - mainly if not wholly cynical about the whole thing, even in papers that are generally seen to be organs of the state. Do you not accept that some things that this government do or say are indefensible, even by the most die hard apologists of the teflon don?

As far as wondering if I'm wrong about the reasons, then I would be interested in reading about the reason that doesn't fall under the categories in Post #10 as to why Thailand wants subs.

They are pretty straight forward reasons in that post as they are the same reasons most countries pursue subs, so if you are saying that it is for reasons other than those listed, I'd like to hear about it.

Not sure what you are on about as far as the "real world" goes.

If you find something in the news worth posting that's topic-related, go ahead and post it, rather than talk about it.

.

Edited April 5, 2011 by Buchholz

[jayboy]

I also happen to know there are retired navy submarine professionals on this forum, and some may pipe in as such, or not stating their credentials, but I doubt I am will be contradicted by any of them.

You mean there are some members of the forum that are not retired navy submarine professionals?

I have to admit it is quite amusing to observe the struggle inside the heads of some who (a) know that the proposed purchase of these useless old German subs is an expensive joke and ( an unwillingness to criticise any decision - however corrupt or stupid - of the Thai military.It explains much of the careful treading on eggshells language used in this thread.

[animatic]

I also happen to know there are retired navy submarine professionals on this forum, and some may pipe in as such, or not stating their credentials, but I doubt I will be contradicted by any of them.

You mean there are some members of the forum that are not retired navy submarine professionals?

I have to admit it is quite amusing to observe the struggle inside the heads of some who (a) know that the proposed purchase of these useless old German subs is an expensive joke and ( an unwillingness to criticise any decision - however corrupt or stupid - of the Thai military.It explains much of the careful treading on eggshells language used in this thread.

Not at all.

'Question one is an irrelevancy.

Commentary two about what goes on in the heads of some is against forum rules, actually, and also equally irrelevant. Few care it you are amused.

Stating the facts about the usefulness of the subs, or their potential usages, is neither pro nor con purchase, just pointing out their continued viability and usefulness in the face of uninformed commentaries to the contrary.

This has nothing to do with the appropriateness of Thailand specifically buying them at this time. Should Thailand buy them, maybe not, I can see better things to spend the money on. Could they get good use out of them if purchased yes. Will they? Who knows,

Edited April 6, 2011 by animatic

[jayboy]

I also happen to know there are retired navy submarine professionals on this forum, and some may pipe in as such, or not stating their credentials, but I doubt I will be contradicted by any of them.

You mean there are some members of the forum that are not retired navy submarine professionals?

I have to admit it is quite amusing to observe the struggle inside the heads of some who (a) know that the proposed purchase of these useless old German subs is an expensive joke and ( an unwillingness to criticise any decision - however corrupt or stupid - of the Thai military.It explains much of the careful treading on eggshells language used in this thread.

Not at all.

'Question one is an irrelevancy.

Commentary two about what goes on in the heads of some is against forum rules, actually, and also equally irrelevant.

Stating the facts about the usefulness of the subs, or their potential usages, is neither pro nor con purchase, just pointing out their continued viability and usefulness in the face of uniformed commentaries to the contrary.

And has nothing to do with the appropriateness of Thailand specifically buying them at this time. Should Thailand buy them, maybe not, I can see better things to spend the money on. Could they get good use out of them if purchased yes. Will they? Who knows,

You should continue this discussion over a beer at Washington Square where foreign oldsters with too much time on their hands discuss such matters at interminable length.

[animatic]

I also happen to know there are retired navy submarine professionals on this forum, and some may pipe in as such, or not stating their credentials, but I doubt I will be contradicted by any of them.

You mean there are some members of the forum that are not retired navy submarine professionals?

I have to admit it is quite amusing to observe the struggle inside the heads of some who (a) know that the proposed purchase of these useless old German subs is an expensive joke and ( an unwillingness to criticise any decision - however corrupt or stupid - of the Thai military.It explains much of the careful treading on eggshells language used in this thread.

Not at all.

'Question one is an irrelevancy.

Commentary two about what goes on in the heads of some is against forum rules, actually, and also equally irrelevant.

Stating the facts about the usefulness of the subs, or their potential usages, is neither pro nor con purchase, just pointing out their continued viability and usefulness in the face of uniformed commentaries to the contrary.

And has nothing to do with the appropriateness of Thailand specifically buying them at this time. Should Thailand buy them, maybe not, I can see better things to spend the money on. Could they get good use out of them if purchased yes. Will they? Who knows,

You should continue this discussion over a beer at Washington Square where foreign oldsters with too much time on their hands discuss such matters at interminable length.

Ooh tres snappy comeback.... not.

No need to go to Washington Square since Suzanka moved to Tong Lor, and the beer is just as good in other irish bars.

[SteeleJoe]

They do not need submarines! What a total waste of money for a developing country.

There's no shortage of other countries you may classify in that manner that have subs, like Algeria, Bulgaria, Chile, Ecuador, Egypt, Indonesia, Malaysia, Peru, Venezuela, and Vietnam.

http://www.hazegray.org/worldnav/

You may be surprised to learn that 43 nations have subs.

.

So, because other countries have subs they don't need, then it makes sense for Thailand to have subs that they don't need either?

[Buchholz]

They do not need submarines! What a total waste of money for a developing country.

There's no shortage of other countries you may classify in that manner that have subs, like Algeria, Bulgaria, Chile, Ecuador, Egypt, Indonesia, Malaysia, Peru, Venezuela, and Vietnam.

http://www.hazegray.org/worldnav/

You may be surprised to learn that 43 nations have subs.

So, because other countries have subs they don't need, then it makes sense for Thailand to have subs that they don't need either?

That's predicated on the assumption that these many countries don't need subs, which just reflects a lack of knowledge regarding their capabilities and potential.

If one becomes familiar with their abilities, then such sweeping uninformed generalizations wouldn't be made.

That so many nations do have subs obviously points to their value.

[jayboy]

No need to go to Washington Square since Suzanka moved to Tong Lor, and the beer is just as good in other irish bars.

I'm fairly sure this is an area in which you are vastly more knowledgeable than I.