Thai Navy Seeking Cabinet Nod For Submarines, Frigates Upgrade

[ballpoint]

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.

Once again, jayboy makes a number of posts without making any statement relevant to the thread topic. In this case, he also illustrates a favoured technique of his: introduce a topic (Washington Square in this case), wait until some one comments on that topic, and then flame them for doing so. All rather tedious. I can't wait for Pasuk & Baker to come out with a new book to keep him occupied, if only for the length of time it takes to colour the pictures in. Although, given his ability to stay within the lines of discussion here, that won't take long.

Personally, I couldn't care less if the navy gets these submarines or not. They have their reasons for requesting them; whether strategic, show off value, personal monetary gain, or any combination of these. The government will have its reasons for approving / not approving them; whether for face (see, we can stand up to the military), belief in their strategic value, pay back of a favour, show off value, personal monetary gain, or any combination of these. I do see one good outcome of them even being brought up though. They have annoyed the jumped up little Pol Potter next door, and his supporters on this forum.

[SteeleJoe]

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

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

My apologies. I hadn't made any assumptions on such things and hadn't intended to seem as if I had. I simply don't have sufficient knowledge.

My comment was actually predicated on the fact that when someone said "(The Thais) do not need submarines! What a total waste of money for a developing country.", your response was:

There's noshortage of other countries you may classify in that manner that have subs,like Algeria, Bulgaria, Chile, Ecuador, Egypt, Indonesia, Malaysia, Peru,Venezuela, and Vietnam.

Ergo (heh) it would seem that your response to "No need" and"waste of money" was 'Well these countries also might not need thembut they have them too..."

That so many nations do have subs obviously points to theirvalue.

That is predicated on the assumption that governments always and only make the right decisions and that there would be no possible other reasons to make major purchases in arms than a a genuine and legitimate need.

That's a pretty bold assumption, in my opinion.

EDITED FOR TYPO

Edited April 6, 2011 by SteeleJoe

[saintofsilence]

This is what they need :)Flying' submarine next tourism adventure

BILLIONAIRE adventurer Richard Branson has announced plans to offer tourists trips to the deepest parts of the ocean in a new submarine - for a hefty fee.

First he plans to travel in a solo craft himself to explore the ocean. Branson said that over the next two years, the solo craft will go to the bottom of the Mariana Trench in the Pacific Ocean, the Atlantic's Puerto Rico Trench and South Sandwich Trench, the Diamantina Trench in the Indian Ocean and the Molloy Deep in the Arctic Ocean.

Read more: http://www.news.com.au/travel/news/flying-submarine-next-tourism-adventure/story-e6frfq80-1226034455787#ixzz1IiWt8N7B

[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.

Once again, jayboy makes a number of posts without making any statement relevant to the thread topic. In this case, he also illustrates a favoured technique of his: introduce a topic (Washington Square in this case), wait until some one comments on that topic, and then flame them for doing so. All rather tedious. I can't wait for Pasuk & Baker to come out with a new book to keep him occupied, if only for the length of time it takes to colour the pictures in. Although, given his ability to stay within the lines of discussion here, that won't take long.

Personally, I couldn't care less if the navy gets these submarines or not. They have their reasons for requesting them; whether strategic, show off value, personal monetary gain, or any combination of these. The government will have its reasons for approving / not approving them; whether for face (see, we can stand up to the military), belief in their strategic value, pay back of a favour, show off value, personal monetary gain, or any combination of these. I do see one good outcome of them even being brought up though. They have annoyed the jumped up little Pol Potter next door, and his supporters on this forum.

I'm not sure about the last sentence but I thought your post very amusing.Some well directed hits but without malice.I certainly accept I can be a bit of a Pasuk and Baker bore!

My only slight reservation is that you seem to confuse flaming with banter.The two are different but I agree many don't seem to know the difference

[ballpoint]

I'm not sure about the last sentence but I thought your post very amusing.Some well directed hits but without malice.I certainly accept I can be a bit of a Pasuk and Baker bore!

My only slight reservation is that you seem to confuse flaming with banter.The two are different but I agree many don't seem to know the difference

Well retorted, and educational to boot. I always thought a banter was a small hen.

[animatic]

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.

And if you imagine this pithy comment is some sort of slight, you have gravely missed the mark.

[animatic]

Uh, that would be 'bantum hen' I believe.

Banter most usually has a fun loving quality to it,

which seems lacking in this instance.

[Macmundi]

Thats the cost we have to bear when we make more enemies.:jap: I mean stupidity, not monetary.

Edited April 6, 2011 by Macmundi

[phiphidon]

Uh, that would be 'bantum hen' I believe.

Banter most usually has a fun loving quality to it,

which seems lacking in this instance.

It's Bantam, but lets not quibble. Lighten up.

[Beerboo]

Rather have it and not need it, then need it and not have it.

[brahmburgers]

The Belgians and the Israelis make some excellent automatic weapons, small and medium scale. The Thai military would be smarter to purchase hundreds or thousands of such items for the price of a sub with 10 years remaining in its lifespan.

As the Americans are finding, low cost (even low tech) weapons (used by their adversaries) can be effective in knocking out expensive high tech weapons. One of the most effective weapons in the US arsenal is a bomb which is essentially a gas tank. It's dropped by parachute, while spinning and emitting a large cloud of gas. An ignition, and - ka-boooom - all oxygen in a square Km is burned, and every living thing either burns or asphixiates. A high schooler could build one in his garage.

A simple hand grenade could knock out the effectiveness of the world's most expensive high tech aircraft carrier, if dropped in the launch chute on deck.

[jayboy]

The Asia Sentinel has an article on the background to purchase this useless junk.It also touches on the lies, corruption and sheer stupidity of other military procurement decisions.

http://www.asiasentinel.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3108&Itemid=392

[Bagwan]

For those that want to acquaint themselves with the finer points of submarine warfare Tom Clancey's book 'Submarine' would be a good primer. It was written with the assistance and collaboration of senior US submarine officers. No doubt his view and that of his collaborators in respect of the Perisher course will tee off some of the Ra Ra crowd.

Tom Clancy doesn't write every book with his name on, but this one he surely did. His earlier novels made into films propelled him to fame, and none more so that The Hunt for Red October". I was all based on his interest in such technical things in the military, and this is the factual version, complete with a low down on all submarines in the worlds major powers, with the focus on the deadliest US boats.

Technical terms are explained, and the feel of living on such a vessel is conveyed, from the torpedo room to the bunks (no-one except the captain gets his own) and even the kitchen (no larger than yours probably) is defined in detail.

All the systems are explained, from that which fires the weapons, to the fire-fighting equipment. Strangely, the principle reason for a nuclear submarines existence is only scantily described, perhaps because that aspect lacks the glory of the morally superior conventional weapons role. I found it tragically amusing that the plain fact that these beasts are probably the most dangerous pieces of hardware ever conceived by mankind is left unsaid. The fact that vessels such as the USS Thresher sank without recovery is mentioned, but the implications of a reactor melt-down in the ocean (which would make Chernobyl look like a picnic in the park) is completely unexplored. Of course now, all these years later, we can all thank God that even with the Kursk disaster that didn't happen, but a third of the world's seas could then be contaminated.

What is explored is really every other aspect of building, maintaining, manning and commanding subs. The training that recruits receive especially at Captain level is explained, and here comes the surprise. Despite Tom Clancey's patriotism, he confesses that no one does it better than...the British! The Perisher course for training RN submarine captains is thoroughly discussed, and credit is given to the Royal Navy creating the worlds best leaders in submarine warfare, and rightly so when they carry such enormous responsibility, not only for their government, but ultimately the lives of everyone! This brings up the obvious concern that other navies have a below par leadership in their subs. I think that Clancey could have gone deeper into that, especially from the Soviet/Russian side of things.

As a conclusion, various scenarios are explored in which nuclear submarines would play a role, from lying low in deep water harbours to attacking airfields in Iran (with Land Attack Cruise Missiles as they did in the Gulf war). Perhaps such scenarios are now looking more likely. What is certain, however, is the role played by British subs in the South Atlantic against the Argentinians during the Falklands war. The sinking of the General Belgrano" and other important missions there are carefully unpacked. Is there a better read for such awesome vessels, which draws the reader in so he ends up feeling in need of shore leave?

[otherstuff1957]

The subs will probably be based at Sattahip, not for any strategic reasons, but so the officers can run up to BKK on the weekends more easily.

This old German frigate would look good at Sattahip too

[ginjag]

Uh, that would be 'bantum hen' I believe.

Banter most usually has a fun loving quality to it,

which seems lacking in this instance.

It's Bantam, but lets not quibble. Lighten up.

Had to laugh at the Bantams bit. 55555 I used to keep these bantams, lovely small breed of chicken, good layers but eggs smaller. Very colourful and busy birds and bantams do have males don't forget. They are just bantams cock or hen. Hope I didn't fowl anything up. Northern England folks do a lot of bantering, a way of life.

[Rinrada]

Billy Banter wos an old fat English public schoolboy...s"rite ..init..

[ginjag]

Billy Banter wos an old fat English public schoolboy...s"rite ..init..

Srong so there Bally Binter- Mr. Quelch say's Bunter- -------------your going back a bit. Gerald Campion was Bunter, everyone had a bunter in their class at school. back to topic