Battle For Gripen Fighters

[webfact]

Battle for Gripen fighters

By Kornchanok Raksaseri

The Nation

It is yet to be seen whether Cabinet will approve the budget for the Armed forces to buy more weapons before House dissolution, but the value of six new Gripen jet fighters that arrived in Thailand recently also raises interesting questions.

Approved by General Surayud Chulanont, the Bt19-billion Swedish-made fleet responds to and reflects Thailand's current needs perfectly, especially when the country's buzzwords are security, unity, sufficiency and education.

"The Bt19-billion payment isn't just for six aircraft. It's for the whole system," was the message from Thailand's first four Gripen pilots to finish the 10-month training programme in Sweden.

Security is the core purpose of the fleet. The range of the Gripens cover the scope of responsibility of Wing 7, Surat Thani Air Force base, to protect the South of Thailand, including natural resources in the Andaman and the Gulf of Thailand.

"This peaceful country's need for state-of-the-art air-defence technology does not mean it wants to start wars or become a threat to its neighbours," Wg Cdr Putthapong Phalajivin said.

UNITY

Despite the compact size of each aircraft, the fleet works perfectly as a team. It is fit for purpose in an age when jet fighters no longer need to face each other and fight.

A special feature of these Swedish-made aircraft is the "data-link system", which allows it to communicate with the station 500 kilometres away without having to use radar.

On-screen graphics also portray the overall situation as well as the positions of fleet members and counterparts at all times.

The fleet can work together with the Saab 340 Air Early Warning Erieye system that the Royal Thai Air Force has received from the Swedish government as part of the procurement programme.

In Southeast Asia, only Thailand and Singapore's air forces are equipped with this kind of advanced surveillance system.

Gripen's radar can detect and lock on to multiple targets at the same time.

This multi-role jet fighter can also switch smoothly to different missions, from air-to-air to air-to-surface, in just one button push.

SUFFICIENCY

"Gripen has all the features we need, and for money we can afford," Wg Cdr Jackkrit Thammavichai, squadron commander, said.

Against other options such as the Russian-made SU 30 and US-made F16, the compact aircraft has much lower costs of operation and maintenance.

Jackkrit used the metaphor of buying cars. "We are not buying a big and luxurious car and spending all the money we have just to purchase it. With the high maintenance cost, if the car breaks down, we cannot afford to fix it; then we have to park it at home," he said.

Moreover, the aircraft can be loaded with all the US-made weapons in Thailand's inventory.

EDUCATION

Wg Cdr Chareon Watanasrimongkol, deputy squadron commander, said the Gripen programme is more than just an aircraft purchase, but also for human resources development.

"Royal Thai Air Force personnel have learnt a lot about new things such as electronic warfare and digital map-generating systems. We can build our own data-link system in the future," he said, adding that the knowledge can be applied and developed for uses other than warfare.

Wg Cdr Nattavut Duangsungnaen said the Gripens' options are different depending on the country that operates them.

Unlike other aircraft package deals, Thai staff have got access to the technology behind the system. This has freed Thailand from dependence on the Swedish company if it wants to integrate the whole Thai air-defence system or install more information systems in the military's fleet, such as a link with the navy's submarines.

National security is expensive yet crucial for the country. The Royal Thai Air Force will get another six Gripen jet fighters, costing Bt16 billion, in the next two years. The high cost and painful lessons from the past such as GT200 scandal have made Thais sceptical about military procurement projects.

After all, the underlining values for any government's procurement projects are emphasis on national interest above personal gain, as well as transparency. The people in charge of security have yet to prove this to the people of the country.

-- The Nation 2011-04-08

[ginjag]

This intro about the Gripen is made to sound good, and I suppose if Thailand does need the said aircraft (and can afford them, AND IT SAID THEY CAN) then by all means use them to train up your pilots. But this package has much more thought than the AIRCRAFT carrier-and the SUBMARINE buying, those two decisions, were in the least ridiculous, you could have bought 12 Gripen-OR better health care, Even Updating DON MUANG BKK second airport HUB, so not even spending the monies allocated on updating Swampy.

Edited April 8, 2011 by ginjag

[asiawatcher]

This intro about the Gripen is made to sound good, and I suppose if Thailand does need the said aircraft (and can afford them, AND IT SAID THEY CAN) then by all means use them to train up your pilots. But this package has much more thought than the AIRCRAFT carrier-and the SUBMARINE buying, those two decisions, were in the least ridiculous, you could have bought 12 Gripen-OR better health care, Even Updating DON MUANG BKK second airport HUB, so not even spending the monies allocated on updating Swampy.

Concur - air supremacy wins most battes, not subs or tanks - we only have to see what is happening in Libya for results oriented as well as the Iraq forced submission. A few well armed aircraft make mincemeat of any ground or sea threat, far less man power and far less expensive to maintain.

[EyesWideOpen]

After the lunacy and wastage of their " aircraft carrier", I am amazed that the military has the balls to keep asking for expensive toys that will be junk in ten years. Military threat from Malaysia ?? Give me a break...... After the GT2000 fiasco, I would have thought the military would have hung their heads in shame for at least a few years till people forgot about it.. Instead they are right back at the feeding trough. This truly is Amazing Thailand. Hmmmm how about investing in the future, and create a better school system, or any one of a hundred other things that would improve people's lives. Instead they buy this military junk, the generals pocket their 30% , and the jets slowly rot parked at a base somewhere, shades of the Harrier jump jet disaster, where I believe not a single one can fly now........Shit, no wonder the poor people of this country are angry...

[Buchholz]

This intro about the Gripen is made to sound good, and I suppose if Thailand does need the said aircraft (and can afford them, AND IT SAID THEY CAN) then by all means use them to train up your pilots. But this package has much more thought than the AIRCRAFT carrier-and the SUBMARINE buying, those two decisions, were in the least ridiculous, you could have bought 12 Gripen-OR better health care, Even Updating DON MUANG BKK second airport HUB, so not even spending the monies allocated on updating Swampy.

Concur - air supremacy wins most battes, not subs or tanks - we only have to see what is happening in Libya for results oriented as well as the Iraq forced submission. A few well armed aircraft make mincemeat of any ground or sea threat, far less man power and far less expensive to maintain.

How does an aircraft make "mincemeat" of a sub?

[phiphidon]

This intro about the Gripen is made to sound good, and I suppose if Thailand does need the said aircraft (and can afford them, AND IT SAID THEY CAN) then by all means use them to train up your pilots. But this package has much more thought than the AIRCRAFT carrier-and the SUBMARINE buying, those two decisions, were in the least ridiculous, you could have bought 12 Gripen-OR better health care, Even Updating DON MUANG BKK second airport HUB, so not even spending the monies allocated on updating Swampy.

Concur - air supremacy wins most battes, not subs or tanks - we only have to see what is happening in Libya for results oriented as well as the Iraq forced submission. A few well armed aircraft make mincemeat of any ground or sea threat, far less man power and far less expensive to maintain.

How does an aircraft make "mincemeat" of a sub?

Air Launched torpedos or depth charges perhaps?

e.g http://articles.jane...ted-States.html

[ginjag]

This intro about the Gripen is made to sound good, and I suppose if Thailand does need the said aircraft (and can afford them, AND IT SAID THEY CAN) then by all means use them to train up your pilots. But this package has much more thought than the AIRCRAFT carrier-and the SUBMARINE buying, those two decisions, were in the least ridiculous, you could have bought 12 Gripen-OR better health care, Even Updating DON MUANG BKK second airport HUB, so not even spending the monies allocated on updating Swampy.

Concur - air supremacy wins most battes, not subs or tanks - we only have to see what is happening in Libya for results oriented as well as the Iraq forced submission. A few well armed aircraft make mincemeat of any ground or sea threat, far less man power and far less expensive to maintain.

How does an aircraft make "mincemeat" of a sub?

Air Launched torpedos or depth charges perhaps?

e.g http://articles.jane...ted-States.html

Buch...

How does a sub make mincemeat of an aircraft ?? ask a s. question and you get a s. answer

Edited April 8, 2011 by ginjag

[phiphidon]

How does an aircraft make "mincemeat" of a sub?

Air Launched torpedos or depth charges perhaps?

e.g http://articles.jane...ted-States.html

Buch...

How does a sub make mincemeat of an aircraft ?? ask a s. question and you get a s. answer

Was it a stupid answer?

[ginjag]

How does an aircraft make "mincemeat" of a sub?

Air Launched torpedos or depth charges perhaps?

e.g http://articles.jane...ted-States.html

Buch...

How does a sub make mincemeat of an aircraft ?? ask a s. question and you get a s. answer

Was it a stupid answer?

Maybe not the way he put it, don't forget it was comparing the two craft------but Gripen were a far better buy--than the crap 30 year old subs, and now with modern locating devices, and having to surface in shallow waters around the gulf, how many of these subs are going to be around in modern warfare. Relating to the other thread that had interest, WHAT threat do they have on the surrounding countries, therefore you would HAVE to choose the Gripen-not the Aircraft carrier/sub buying.

[BOS2BKK]

This intro about the Gripen is made to sound good, and I suppose if Thailand does need the said aircraft (and can afford them, AND IT SAID THEY CAN) then by all means use them to train up your pilots. But this package has much more thought than the AIRCRAFT carrier-and the SUBMARINE buying, those two decisions, were in the least ridiculous, you could have bought 12 Gripen-OR better health care, Even Updating DON MUANG BKK second airport HUB, so not even spending the monies allocated on updating Swampy.

Concur - air supremacy wins most battes, not subs or tanks - we only have to see what is happening in Libya for results oriented as well as the Iraq forced submission. A few well armed aircraft make mincemeat of any ground or sea threat, far less man power and far less expensive to maintain.

How does an aircraft make "mincemeat" of a sub?

[BOS2BKK]

This intro about the Gripen is made to sound good, and I suppose if Thailand does need the said aircraft (and can afford them, AND IT SAID THEY CAN) then by all means use them to train up your pilots. But this package has much more thought than the AIRCRAFT carrier-and the SUBMARINE buying, those two decisions, were in the least ridiculous, you could have bought 12 Gripen-OR better health care, Even Updating DON MUANG BKK second airport HUB, so not even spending the monies allocated on updating Swampy.

Concur - air supremacy wins most battes, not subs or tanks - we only have to see what is happening in Libya for results oriented as well as the Iraq forced submission. A few well armed aircraft make mincemeat of any ground or sea threat, far less man power and far less expensive to maintain.

How does an aircraft make "mincemeat" of a sub?

Why don't you ask the pilots of the US Orion's and Vikings, the British Nimrods, or Russian Bears. They will be readily acknowledged as far more of a threat to a sub than even another sub, because quite simply the sub is absolutely no threat to them. They can drop sonar Buoys without even attempting to hide their position, actively seek a subs location, and direct Naval assets, or yes...I hate to break it to you... some aircraft are still equipped to drop torpedoes. The Gripen is a first rate fighter, and trying to decry this will thought out comprehensive purchase initiative by comparing it to a low level corruption scandal like the GT200 is ridiculous. That is like comparing the purchase of a Honda accord, to a late night spending spree on the home shopping channel. Thailand has made some poor decisions in the past based on their "Face" mentality. They are playing ball alongside first world countries, and as a regional power they want to act like a regional power. Unfortunately while they are trying to act globally, they are still thinking locally. The Gripen purchase program is one of the most sensible decisions I have seen the Thai military make in the decade I have been following it. Like the wing commander said, they didn't just purchase the fighters, they purchased the airborne control aircraft, training, and maintenance as well. The Gripen is NATO STANAG, so it will wear any weapons package purchased from a NATO nation like the US or England, meaning they can arm it with their existing stock, and the biggest one, is the Swedes gave them training on the base technology, something the US and EU almost never do. This means the Thais can develop and expand the technology to suit their needs without having to depend on the good will of often fickle world powers. I applaud the Thais for this step towards independence. And as for the "Bakesale to buy a bomber" bumpr sticker comments, the 60s are long over, let the hippie mindset go. National defense is just as important as education.

[Buchholz]

This intro about the Gripen is made to sound good, and I suppose if Thailand does need the said aircraft (and can afford them, AND IT SAID THEY CAN) then by all means use them to train up your pilots. But this package has much more thought than the AIRCRAFT carrier-and the SUBMARINE buying, those two decisions, were in the least ridiculous, you could have bought 12 Gripen-OR better health care, Even Updating DON MUANG BKK second airport HUB, so not even spending the monies allocated on updating Swampy.

Concur - air supremacy wins most battes, not subs or tanks - we only have to see what is happening in Libya for results oriented as well as the Iraq forced submission. A few well armed aircraft make mincemeat of any ground or sea threat, far less man power and far less expensive to maintain.

How does an aircraft make "mincemeat" of a sub?

Air Launched torpedos or depth charges perhaps?

e.g http://articles.jane...ted-States.html

two things.

1. Only USA and Australia have the MK 54

2. From experience, they are not very effective at all.

[Buchholz]

Concur - air supremacy wins most battes, not subs or tanks - we only have to see what is happening in Libya for results oriented as well as the Iraq forced submission. A few well armed aircraft make mincemeat of any ground or sea threat, far less man power and far less expensive to maintain.

How does an aircraft make "mincemeat" of a sub?

Air Launched torpedos or depth charges perhaps?

e.g http://articles.jane...ted-States.html

Buch...

How does a sub make mincemeat of an aircraft ?? ask a s. question and you get a s. answer

I won't say you made a s. post, but if you notice, I didn't make the statement a sub can make mincemeat out of an aircraft. It can't.

The same as an aircraft can't make mincemeat out of a sub, which was stated. Still, I wouldn't say that it was

a s. statement, just an uninformed one.

btw, it's probably best if you not refer to any question or answer as a s. one.

.

Edited April 8, 2011 by Buchholz

[Buchholz]

and now with modern locating devices, and having to surface in shallow waters around the gulf

Why do they have to surface?

What are these modern locating devices?

How effective are they?

To help you out, I'll give you the answer to the first one.

1. They don't have to. They run under the surface or at snorkel depth until returning to port.

The other two you can find out on your own.

.

Edited April 8, 2011 by Buchholz

[Buchholz]

This intro about the Gripen is made to sound good, and I suppose if Thailand does need the said aircraft (and can afford them, AND IT SAID THEY CAN) then by all means use them to train up your pilots. But this package has much more thought than the AIRCRAFT carrier-and the SUBMARINE buying, those two decisions, were in the least ridiculous, you could have bought 12 Gripen-OR better health care, Even Updating DON MUANG BKK second airport HUB, so not even spending the monies allocated on updating Swampy.

Concur - air supremacy wins most battes, not subs or tanks - we only have to see what is happening in Libya for results oriented as well as the Iraq forced submission. A few well armed aircraft make mincemeat of any ground or sea threat, far less man power and far less expensive to maintain.

How does an aircraft make "mincemeat" of a sub?

Why don't you ask the pilots of the US Orion's and Vikings, the British Nimrods, or Russian Bears. They will be readily acknowledged as far more of a threat to a sub than even another sub, because quite simply the sub is absolutely no threat to them. They can drop sonar Buoys without even attempting to hide their position, actively seek a subs location, and direct Naval assets, or yes...I hate to break it to you... some aircraft are still equipped to drop torpedoes.

First, thank you for comments on the Gripen... which I didn't comment on, but still your comments on it were worthwhile.

As for the above submarine comments, IMHO, you got a couple things wrong. The biggest detection threat to a sub is another sub. By a wide margin.

Regarding aircraft detection of subs, even though they are the best in the world at sub detection, the P-3 Orion is still not very good at it. Yes, thee can actively seek all they want, but rarely will thee find. They other aspect is that the only country in SE Asia that has the P-3's.... is Thailand.

As for air-launched anti-submarine torpedoes, see the preceding post.

[ginjag]

and now with modern locating devices, and having to surface in shallow waters around the gulf

Why do they have to surface?

What are these modern locating devices?

How effective are they?

To help you out, I'll give you the answer to the first one.

1. They don't have to. They run under the surface or at snorkel depth until returning to port.

The other two you can find out on your own.

.

Answer to 1....to re-charge

Hey come on if you don't know what modern locating old subs entails, not a lot more I can say about that

How effective--the most vunerable time for a sub--on or near surface.

Nearly all the gulf is not that far from snorkle depth.

Near surface to charge the batteries. That is when they kick up noise.

Why are you arguing about scrap subs...WHY ?----just cause you enjoy it ?? so you would have no hesitation in buying Thai Int-T.G.-scrap 747-400 that are 20+ years old. come on -I am not a military person, but I would still not buy the subs, but yes to Gripen.

Edited April 8, 2011 by ginjag

[Buchholz]

and now with modern locating devices, and having to surface in shallow waters around the gulf

Why do they have to surface?

What are these modern locating devices?

How effective are they?

To help you out, I'll give you the answer to the first one.

1. They don't have to. They run under the surface or at snorkel depth until returning to port.

The other two you can find out on your own.

Answer to 1....to re-charge

Hey come on if you don't know what modern locating old subs entails, not a lot more I can say about that

How effective--the most vunerable time for a sub--on or near surface.

Nearly all the gulf is not that far from snorkle depth.

Near surface to charge the batteries. That is when they kick up noise.

Why are you arguing about scrap subs...WHY ?----just cause you enjoy it ?? so you would have no hesitation in buying Thai Int-T.G.-scrap 747-400 that are 20+ years old. come on -I am not a military person, but I would still not buy the subs, but yes to Gripen.

First, I'm not arguing. I'm simply informing (or asking posters to inform themselves) in regards to the capabilities/liabilities of submarines.

There's been so much misinformation and erroneous comments posted on the various threads that correcting them has taken precedence over stating an opinion over the benefits/costs of this particular purchase of this particular sub.

I understand that most people don't understand subs, but when that doesn't stop them from making completely inaccurate statements based on Lord knows what, then I feel it's warranted in correcting these inaccuracies.

Comparing the hulls of a submarine and that of an airplane is an example of such. Apples and doghouses.

[ginjag]

and now with modern locating devices, and having to surface in shallow waters around the gulf

Why do they have to surface?

What are these modern locating devices?

How effective are they?

To help you out, I'll give you the answer to the first one.

1. They don't have to. They run under the surface or at snorkel depth until returning to port.

The other two you can find out on your own.

Answer to 1....to re-charge

Hey come on if you don't know what modern locating old subs entails, not a lot more I can say about that

How effective--the most vunerable time for a sub--on or near surface.

Nearly all the gulf is not that far from snorkle depth.

Near surface to charge the batteries. That is when they kick up noise.

Why are you arguing about scrap subs...WHY ?----just cause you enjoy it ?? so you would have no hesitation in buying Thai Int-T.G.-scrap 747-400 that are 20+ years old. come on -I am not a military person, but I would still not buy the subs, but yes to Gripen.

First, I'm not arguing. I'm simply informing (or asking posters to inform themselves) in regards to the capabilities/liabilities of submarines.

There's been so much misinformation and erroneous comments posted on the various threads that correcting them has taken precedence over stating an opinion over the benefits/costs of this particular purchase of this particular sub.

I understand that most people don't understand subs, but when that doesn't stop them from making completely inaccurate statements based on Lord knows what, then I feel it's warranted in correcting these inaccuracies.

Comparing the hulls of a submarine and that of an airplane is an example of such. Apples and doghouses.

If you are happy with the age old subs-and their ability to contribute to a threat then purchace them by all means. You with your vast knowledge of subs have not convinced me, or have taught me anything about them. They are a crazy buy-I'll stick with my Grifin thanks. I've said my logical bit, and do not wish to carry on about 30 year old subs end of subject if you don't mind.

[Buchholz]

First, I'm not arguing. I'm simply informing (or asking posters to inform themselves) in regards to the capabilities/liabilities of submarines.

There's been so much misinformation and erroneous comments posted on the various threads that correcting them has taken precedence over stating an opinion over the benefits/costs of this particular purchase of this particular sub.

I understand that most people don't understand subs, but when that doesn't stop them from making completely inaccurate statements based on Lord knows what, then I feel it's warranted in correcting these inaccuracies.

Comparing the hulls of a submarine and that of an airplane is an example of such. Apples and doghouses.

If you are happy with the age old subs-and their ability to contribute to a threat then purchace them by all means. You with your vast knowledge of subs have not convinced me, or have taught me anything about them. They are a crazy buy-I'll stick with my Grifin thanks. I've said my logical bit, and do not wish to carry on about 30 year old subs end of subject if you don't mind.

I don't mind at all.

I wasn't trying to convince you of anything except, as I stated, some basic fundamental information regarding subs to correct your misstatements about them.

I've also not said anything negative regarding the purchase of the Gripens.

I wasn't even aware it was an either/or situation.

.

Edited April 8, 2011 by Buchholz

[swerver]

After the lunacy and wastage of their " aircraft carrier", I am amazed that the military has the balls to keep asking for expensive toys that will be junk in ten years. Military threat from Malaysia ?? Give me a break...... After the GT2000 fiasco, I would have thought the military would have hung their heads in shame for at least a few years till people forgot about it.. Instead they are right back at the feeding trough. This truly is Amazing Thailand. Hmmmm how about investing in the future, and create a better school system, or any one of a hundred other things that would improve people's lives. Instead they buy this military junk, the generals pocket their 30% , and the jets slowly rot parked at a base somewhere, shades of the Harrier jump jet disaster, where I believe not a single one can fly now........Shit, no wonder the poor people of this country are angry...

Harrier Jump Jet

That’s correct no a one can fly anymore.

When they were bought together with the Carrier the Harrier engines spare parts were out of production. After the carrier and Jump Jets finally arrived in Thailand soon after the Harriers were grounded for lack of parts. No problem, fair-weather friend sold Thai Navy a bill of goods about supplying engines, which turned out were engines from MD Harriers that were outdated engines sitting in the bone yard, so Thailand spend its good money on another fiasco of not being able to have spare parts. Why don’t you people on this Thai Visa wake up. You can write all you want hoping to help the Thais, but Thais want to do it their way and that is how they are doing it. Good example: Just lost my electric power, the children did make an equipment switch, electric generating equipment switch I did instruct 50-year ago without interrupting power supply. Fifty years later, shows how well Thais learn and apply what they learned.

[ginjag]

First, I'm not arguing. I'm simply informing (or asking posters to inform themselves) in regards to the capabilities/liabilities of submarines.

There's been so much misinformation and erroneous comments posted on the various threads that correcting them has taken precedence over stating an opinion over the benefits/costs of this particular purchase of this particular sub.

I understand that most people don't understand subs, but when that doesn't stop them from making completely inaccurate statements based on Lord knows what, then I feel it's warranted in correcting these inaccuracies.

Comparing the hulls of a submarine and that of an airplane is an example of such. Apples and doghouses.

If you are happy with the age old subs-and their ability to contribute to a threat then purchace them by all means. You with your vast knowledge of subs have not convinced me, or have taught me anything about them. They are a crazy buy-I'll stick with my Grifin thanks. I've said my logical bit, and do not wish to carry on about 30 year old subs end of subject if you don't mind.

I don't mind at all.

I wasn't trying to convince you of anything except, as I stated, some basic fundamental information regarding subs to correct your misstatements about them.

I've also not said anything negative regarding the purchase of the Gripens.

I wasn't even aware it was an either/or situation.

.

My friend, your points seem to be favouring the scrap subs, I was not buying it, because I would not buy a pig in a poke, if I was short of cash.

The subs mainly would be operating in the gulf in fairly shallow water, and a naval friend of mine said that situ is not a good one.

As said before the sub is silent when running on battery, but start its motor and you get detected, and as you said running at periscope depth easily spotted. these are basics and enough together with the age of them. If you want to talk about subs talk about the ultra modern ones -not antiques.

Can we get back on topic, the subs were mentioned because the money spent on the Gripen was a million times better than the money spent on ANTIQUES.

Edited April 8, 2011 by ginjag

[Buchholz]

First, I'm not arguing. I'm simply informing (or asking posters to inform themselves) in regards to the capabilities/liabilities of submarines.

There's been so much misinformation and erroneous comments posted on the various threads that correcting them has taken precedence over stating an opinion over the benefits/costs of this particular purchase of this particular sub.

I understand that most people don't understand subs, but when that doesn't stop them from making completely inaccurate statements based on Lord knows what, then I feel it's warranted in correcting these inaccuracies.

Comparing the hulls of a submarine and that of an airplane is an example of such. Apples and doghouses.

If you are happy with the age old subs-and their ability to contribute to a threat then purchace them by all means. You with your vast knowledge of subs have not convinced me, or have taught me anything about them. They are a crazy buy-I'll stick with my Grifin thanks. I've said my logical bit, and do not wish to carry on about 30 year old subs end of subject if you don't mind.

I don't mind at all.

I wasn't trying to convince you of anything except, as I stated, some basic fundamental information regarding subs to correct your misstatements about them.

I've also not said anything negative regarding the purchase of the Gripens.

I wasn't even aware it was an either/or situation.

My friend, your points seem to be favouring the scrap subs, I was not buying it, because I would not buy a pig in a poke, if I was short of cash.

The subs mainly would be operating in the gulf in fairly shallow water, and a naval friend of mine said that situ is not a good one.

As said before the sub is silent when running on battery, but start its motor and you get detected, and as you said running at periscope depth easily spotted. these are basics and enough together with the age of them. If you want to talk about subs talk about the ultra modern ones -not antiques.

Can we get back on topic, the subs were mentioned because the money spent on the Gripen was a million times better than the money spent on ANTIQUES.

ok, let's try this again.

I'm not favoring or disfavoring this particular purchase of this particular sub.

Your naval friend is correct in that the situation is less than ideal for subs, but it is by no means not do-able.

There's a great deal more involved in detecting a sub than it simply starting its diesel.

I never mentioned running at periscope depth, I mentioned snorkel depth, which is different.

Submarines running at snorkel depth are never "easily spotted." To visualize a snorkel in a sea of water is a million to one long shot.

These antiques, as you mistakenly refer to them, are currently used by a number of Navies and operate in seas around the world on this very day.

Subs are incredible resilient and there are many types of them that are over 20 years old and also operating around the globe on a daily basis.

I thought you were finished earlier with the sub discussion, but perhaps you are now.

[bangon04]

"Despite the compact size of each aircraft, the fleet works perfectly as a team. It is fit for purpose in an age when jet fighters no longer need to face each other and fight."

I seem to recall 2 Thai F15 pilots recently faced each other and fought during training, with unfortunate results.......

Has anyone ever heard of any Thai pilots taking part in (intentional) air-to-air combat? I mean against an enemy with weapons.....

[ratcatcher]

After the lunacy and wastage of their " aircraft carrier", I am amazed that the military has the balls to keep asking for expensive toys that will be junk in ten years. Military threat from Malaysia ?? Give me a break...... After the GT2000 fiasco, I would have thought the military would have hung their heads in shame for at least a few years till people forgot about it.. Instead they are right back at the feeding trough. This truly is Amazing Thailand. Hmmmm how about investing in the future, and create a better school system, or any one of a hundred other things that would improve people's lives. Instead they buy this military junk, the generals pocket their 30% , and the jets slowly rot parked at a base somewhere, shades of the Harrier jump jet disaster, where I believe not a single one can fly now........Shit, no wonder the poor people of this country are angry...

Harrier Jump Jet

That’s correct no a one can fly anymore.

When they were bought together with the Carrier the Harrier engines spare parts were out of production. After the carrier and Jump Jets finally arrived in Thailand soon after the Harriers were grounded for lack of parts. No problem, fair-weather friend sold Thai Navy a bill of goods about supplying engines, which turned out were engines from MD Harriers that were outdated engines sitting in the bone yard, so Thailand spend its good money on another fiasco of not being able to have spare parts. Why don’t you people on this Thai Visa wake up. You can write all you want hoping to help the Thais, but Thais want to do it their way and that is how they are doing it. Good example: Just lost my electric power, the children did make an equipment switch, electric generating equipment switch I did instruct 50-year ago without interrupting power supply. Fifty years later, shows how well Thais learn and apply what they learned.

Speaking of Harriers. Here's the message to the British Government.

Harrier final flypast over Downing Street

The final flypast of the Harrier Jump jet - after the announcement of the withdrawal of the Harrier Jet's funding. Look at it from an angle or squint. Brilliant!!!

[DP25]

The subs mainly would be operating in the gulf in fairly shallow water, and a naval friend of mine said that situ is not a good one.

This particular sub is very small and was designed to operate primarily in shallow waters. It was specifically designed to fight in the Baltic Sea against the Soviet Union, and the Baltic Sea is about the same depth as the Gulf of Thailand.

[ginjag]

The subs mainly would be operating in the gulf in fairly shallow water, and a naval friend of mine said that situ is not a good one.

This particular sub is very small and was designed to operate primarily in shallow waters. It was specifically designed to fight in the Baltic Sea against the Soviet Union, and the Baltic Sea is about the same depth as the Gulf of Thailand.

WAS is the best word. and I doubt your depth figures, you mentioned the comparison so you prove the depth. and how long ago are you talking about???? TOPIC Grifen remember !!!! you took this sub(ject) out of a reply.

[DP25]

The subs mainly would be operating in the gulf in fairly shallow water, and a naval friend of mine said that situ is not a good one.

This particular sub is very small and was designed to operate primarily in shallow waters. It was specifically designed to fight in the Baltic Sea against the Soviet Union, and the Baltic Sea is about the same depth as the Gulf of Thailand.

WAS is the best word. and I doubt your depth figures, you mentioned the comparison so you prove the depth. and how long ago are you talking about???? TOPIC Grifen remember !!!! you took this sub(ject) out of a reply.

I'm sure you can use google as good as anyone but here you go

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Thailand

Average depth 45m

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltic_Sea

Average depth 55m

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_206_submarine

These small and agile submarines were built during the Cold War to operate in the shallow Baltic Sea and attack Warsaw Pact shipping if the war turned hot.

And I'm not the one who got the topit off Grippen, you did so in the very first reply!

Edited April 8, 2011 by DP25

[ginjag]

The subs mainly would be operating in the gulf in fairly shallow water, and a naval friend of mine said that situ is not a good one.

This particular sub is very small and was designed to operate primarily in shallow waters. It was specifically designed to fight in the Baltic Sea against the Soviet Union, and the Baltic Sea is about the same depth as the Gulf of Thailand.

The captain found Moby Dick-so we would easily find your sub, aeroplanes are more my subject, and if you can remember I was talking about them being a better buy than this expensive scrap ( suppose a jet ski could damage the sub at snorkel depth) Pattaya watch out ----I always have better talks with people without googleing.

[Buchholz]

suppose a jet ski could damage the sub at snorkel depth

still on about subs, I see.

a jet ski isn't going to hurt a submarine one iota, but a collision will be one experience that a jet ski driver will never forgets.

[ginjag]

suppose a jet ski could damage the sub at snorkel depth

still on about subs, I see.

a jet ski isn't going to hurt a submarine one iota, but a collision will be one experience that a jet ski driver will never forgets.

Still want to be on the sub/ject--NO I put this ridiculous comment regarding jet ski's-in for a joke, as all we have heard about for a long time is re jet ski's, I have a big sense of humour being from the Nth East U.K. -it was stupid dig at these people who would have a job trying to get money for damage from the sub owners--the Navy ....your up late arn't you??

Edited April 9, 2011 by ginjag