Thai Air Force to take delivery of last three Gripen fighter jets

[Cuban]

Nice clip of the display - although a short flight.

Why not bristling with a weapons payload to "look" the part?

I assume the belly is carrying a fuel tank but the wings look sadly empty - it's as if they bought a Fortuner but could not afford the leather seats or electric windows and got the sub-basic model...

....they need to visit the fighter accessories stall outside Tesco-Lotus to get the fancy bits added.

[Gummigalgen]

how many chickens they gave per plane?

In 2013, the Thai government added US$6.1 billion to its total defense budget, recording a CAGR of 5.14% during the review period (2009-13). The budget is expected to grow at an estimated CAGR of 7.22% over the forecast period (2014-18} and reach US$8.7 billion by 2018. This consistent increase is primarily driven by the need to compensate for the country’s historically low levels of defense spending in the past. Consequently, the Thai Ministry of Defense is expected to acquire a significant amount of materiel during the forecast period.

http://www.asiandefense.com/news_detail.php?id=94

Why on earth would you feel motivated to mock Thailand. I live in Thailand and have a Thai wife and family and take offense to your mockery about chickens. Please don't tell me to get a sense of humor becausse you did not tell a joke. You were trying to belittle Thailand. Mockery is not humor. There is a difference.

Does the history prof recall that Thailand almost bought Russian MIG's because the advantage was they could be paid in chickens? Does the prof remember a German consortium waiting almost a decade for their invoice payment for a piece of highway and as a result a Thai government plane was being grounded in Munich? I like very much the jokes from 'Belg'. Thailand does not have a record of paying bills promptly. Or perhaps the invoice of the scanners.....because part of the money has flown back in some pockets. By the way; Saab is not responsible to deliver the planes in Thailand. The lightning struck is not Saab's responsibility to fix (FOB). Cheers.

[i claudius]

I take it that now Thailand is a hub for fighter jets. but as a falang i will not be allowed to see them ,just like we cant go on their navy destroyers in Satahip ,

[historyprof]

I take it that now Thailand is a hub for fighter jets. but as a falang i will not be allowed to see them ,just like we cant go on their navy destroyers in Satahip ,

The public goes on the aircraft carrier in Sattahip. It's no wonder after reading this thread why they don't want Farangs on board.

[Jim walker]

They might get a chance to test them out soon on the Rubber growers from the south, if they try to blockade the airport,

[Jim walker]

They might get a chance to test them out soon on the Rubber growers from the south, if they try to blockade the airport,

[mok199]

mabey fix the railsystem..first...

[longtom]

Now I know why we heard jets this morning over Samui. Was asking my staff whether this is 'children's day', because that's normally the only day in the year when the jets are flying low over the island.

Let's be happy for them, this seems to be an almost reasonable investment for the Thai army compared to the Blib (or what was the name for this balloon that doesn't fly ?), the 'bomb detectors', the german submarines, ...

[lee b]

Are these being used on the Chiang Mai - Bangkok route due to all the trains coming off the tracks??

[NeverSure]

The Saab Gripen is a very good fighter for small countries. In fact, maybe the best choice. It is lightweight, quick, has excellent air - to - air fighting ability, will operate from short fields, and is overall economical to own and operate.

What it won't do it doesn't need to do to defend the airspace of a small country. It won't carry heavy loads of fuel and munitions, it won't stay airborne for a long time, it doesn't have a long range. It doesn't have good mid air refueling abilitly but then many small countries don't have or need refueling tankers.

It has a delta wing and forward canard which limit its speed but make it very maneuverable. It's just a very good short range and lightweight air defense plane for smaller areas. The extra purchase and operating money needed for something like an F-16 just isn't necessary for the purpose.

For once I think Thailand did something smart if it's true they need more fighters at all.

[hawker9000]

The Saab Gripen is a very good fighter for small countries. In fact, maybe the best choice. It is lightweight, quick, has excellent air - to - air fighting ability, will operate from short fields, and is overall economical to own and operate.

What it won't do it doesn't need to do to defend the airspace of a small country. It won't carry heavy loads of fuel and munitions, it won't stay airborne for a long time, it doesn't have a long range. It doesn't have good mid air refueling abilitly but then many small countries don't have or need refueling tankers.

It has a delta wing and forward canard which limit its speed but make it very maneuverable. It's just a very good short range and lightweight air defense plane for smaller areas. The extra purchase and operating money needed for something like an F-16 just isn't necessary for the purpose.

For once I think Thailand did something smart if it's true they need more fighters at all.

Agree with everything except what you say about relative purchase cost. A new mil-spec F-16 costs about $17M. A new Gripen about $60M. The operating costs of the Gripen are reportedly less, however. From a regional perspective especially, I think the Gripen is probably a good credibility-enhancing choice for Thailand.

[NeverSure]

The Saab Gripen is a very good fighter for small countries. In fact, maybe the best choice. It is lightweight, quick, has excellent air - to - air fighting ability, will operate from short fields, and is overall economical to own and operate.

What it won't do it doesn't need to do to defend the airspace of a small country. It won't carry heavy loads of fuel and munitions, it won't stay airborne for a long time, it doesn't have a long range. It doesn't have good mid air refueling abilitly but then many small countries don't have or need refueling tankers.

It has a delta wing and forward canard which limit its speed but make it very maneuverable. It's just a very good short range and lightweight air defense plane for smaller areas. The extra purchase and operating money needed for something like an F-16 just isn't necessary for the purpose.

For once I think Thailand did something smart if it's true they need more fighters at all.

Agree with everything except what you say about relative purchase cost. A new mil-spec F-16 costs about $17M. A new Gripen about $60M. The operating costs of the Gripen are reportedly less, however. From a regional perspective especially, I think the Gripen is probably a good credibility-enhancing choice for Thailand.

I'm really surprised by that cost number. HERE CNBC says that an F-16 (and F-18) cost the US government about 60 million. So I don't know. I also don't know if that includes any armament or other options.

I do know that the operating cost of an F-16 is about 4x what the Gripen is. Over the typical 40 year lifespan of a jet, the operating costs can be far more than the purchase price. Also, it's hard to figure how it's ordered. Obviously it comes with spare parts and munitions and then there's the need for a simulator and training.

Is it possible that the $17M figure is a 1970's original price, or initial develpment cost or something? That's barely more than a new Lear 60. ??

[hawker9000]

Your question made me curious, so I looked around and found people estimating prices all over the place. ('Glad I'm not in the market for one... )

Here's one end of the spectrum: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_much_does_a_f-16_cost

and somebody else's estimate close to it: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_much_does_a_f-16_cost

and some estimates a little higher...: http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-343.html

And here's the other end: http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/07/12/iraq.fighter.jets/index.html (<< $4Bea ! But that's with weapons, spare parts, and maintenance)

I'm rather inclined to think the Falcon really is cheaper when comparing apples to apples, but I'm not sure it's as capable an aircraft as the Gripen in some important respects. In a furball, I expect the Gripen probably holds up its end quite well against a Falcon even though the Gripen's thrust-to-weight is slightly less (it'll probably get re-engined at some point though, and so that could change). Wing life on the Gripen however may prove to be something of a disappointment as the years wear on.

One major advantage with the Gripen is its design capability for taking off & landing on public roads, which was a Swedish military requirement. I don't think the Falcon can do that (in any meaningful sense - there's probably a road long enough & wide enough somewhere...).

[NeverSure]

Your question made me curious, so I looked around and found people estimating prices all over the place. ('Glad I'm not in the market for one... )

Here's one end of the spectrum: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_much_does_a_f-16_cost

and somebody else's estimate close to it: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_much_does_a_f-16_cost

and some estimates a little higher...: http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-343.html

And here's the other end: http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/07/12/iraq.fighter.jets/index.html (<< $4Bea ! But that's with weapons, spare parts, and maintenance)

I'm rather inclined to think the Falcon really is cheaper when comparing apples to apples, but I'm not sure it's as capable an aircraft as the Gripen in some important respects. In a furball, I expect the Gripen probably holds up its end quite well against a Falcon even though the Gripen's thrust-to-weight is slightly less (it'll probably get re-engined at some point though, and so that could change). Wing life on the Gripen however may prove to be something of a disappointment as the years wear on.

One major advantage with the Gripen is its design capability for taking off & landing on public roads, which was a Swedish military requirement. I don't think the Falcon can do that (in any meaningful sense - there's probably a road long enough & wide enough somewhere...).

I would tend to go more with CNN's article than with a handful of amateur statements. Besides, I just can't get past the 17 mil figure. That's a lot less than a new Gulfstream 5.

I do agree that the Gripen is better suited for Thailand. As for takeoff, I think the Falcon needs about 1 mile, or 1.5 kms, fully loaded. That is unless using Thailand's aircraft carrier catapults hahaha.

The issue with the Falcon beyond operating costs is that it tries to be a multi-tasker. It's a bomber, a fighter, a big, heavy, powerful and relatively long range full and all weather weapons system all rolled into one. It might not be the best at anything other than attacking at night in bad weather. The Gripen can get off the ground fast and do a really good close range defensive effort including dogfighting. Just right for small countries, IMHO.

[smoochy]

The demo on Children's Day at Don Meung was actually quite impressive. Nice looking airplane.

[Cuban]

I know little about the benefits of Brand X vs Brand Y but The RTAF seem well equipped compared to neighboring nations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Cambodian_Air_Force An easy win over one fighter?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Lao_Air_Force No air shows here?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myanmar_Air_Force A contender! (if they all fly)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Malaysian_Air_Force Smallest land boarder therefore least likely to cause conflict?

[Bender]

how many chickens they gave per plane?

In 2013, the Thai government added US$6.1 billion to its total defense budget, recording a CAGR of 5.14% during the review period (2009-13). The budget is expected to grow at an estimated CAGR of 7.22% over the forecast period (2014-18} and reach US$8.7 billion by 2018. This consistent increase is primarily driven by the need to compensate for the country’s historically low levels of defense spending in the past. Consequently, the Thai Ministry of Defense is expected to acquire a significant amount of materiel during the forecast period.

http://www.asiandefense.com/news_detail.php?id=94

Why on earth would you feel motivated to mock Thailand. I live in Thailand and have a Thai wife and family and take offense to your mockery about chickens. Please don't tell me to get a sense of humor becausse you did not tell a joke. You were trying to belittle Thailand. Mockery is not humor. There is a difference.

i guess you are new to the country...

in fact he didnt jock, few years ago, i think it was Thaksin who wanted to exchanged chicken against few plane

Edited September 6, 2013 by Bender

[Bender]

I know little about the benefits of Brand X vs Brand Y but The RTAF seem well equipped compared to neighboring nations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Cambodian_Air_Force An easy win over one fighter?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Lao_Air_Force No air shows here?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myanmar_Air_Force A contender! (if they all fly)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Malaysian_Air_Force Smallest land boarder therefore least likely to cause conflict?

yes against Burma, Laos and Cambodia, yes Bangkok does have airplane.

Otherwise the plane, Gripen, that Thailand did ordered are quite basic.

Malaysia and Singapour are on their way to buy plane like Rafale, typhoon, F35 or Rafale, and these are a lot more expensive.

and more high tech.

Edited September 6, 2013 by Bender

[EyesWideOpen]

how many chickens they gave per plane?

In 2013, the Thai government added US$6.1 billion to its total defense budget, recording a CAGR of 5.14% during the review period (2009-13). The budget is expected to grow at an estimated CAGR of 7.22% over the forecast period (2014-18} and reach US$8.7 billion by 2018. This consistent increase is primarily driven by the need to compensate for the country’s historically low levels of defense spending in the past. Consequently, the Thai Ministry of Defense is expected to acquire a significant amount of materiel during the forecast period.

http://www.asiandefense.com/news_detail.php?id=94

Why on earth would you feel motivated to mock Thailand. I live in Thailand and have a Thai wife and family and take offense to your mockery about chickens. Please don't tell me to get a sense of humor becausse you did not tell a joke. You were trying to belittle Thailand. Mockery is not humor. There is a difference.

i guess you are new to the country...

in fact he didnt jock, few years ago, i think it was Thaksin who wanted to exchanged chicken against few plane

You are correct Bender, there was a chicken for planes deal engineered by Thaksin, to great mirth by expats

here. So HistoryProf, think it time to change your name. Regarding mocking Thailand, if it stopped doing

wacky things on virtually daily basis, there would be a lot less to mock. And not really sure why having a wife and

family here would reduce your ability to see the humor of a country announcing a submarine day last week

when they do not have a submarine.

Regarding these planes, just another silly purchase by the 1700 generals to line their own pockets. There is

no identifiable threat from neighboring countries. Thailand borders four countries. Three of them in essence possess

no air force, Cambodia, Laos, and Mynmar. The fourth, Malaysia, actually has a serious air force, that would make short work of Thailand in a air based conflict. The money spent on these silly planes should have been used

to better the lives of the Thai people. After all, that is the intended purpose of a government. But I have a feeling

that would be an odd concept for Thai government officials, who clearly are in a loot loot loot mode before

the next coup throws them out..... :-(

[Baerboxer]

Not really a laughing matter that Thailand bought the Gripen: it's value for money. The Swiss government just approved the purchase of 22 Gripen fighter jets..

Why would a country that is always neutral, surrounded by "friends" for whom it looks after money, want to buy 22 fighter jets? There is no coastline so any threat would have to travel significant distances over friendly air space.

The RTAF are actually very good, imo, and have a good flying history too. They have a very good museum which is well worth a visit if you enjoy military aircraft. Thailand does have a big coastline and there is certainly a need for fighters like the Gripen.

[Baerboxer]

I know little about the benefits of Brand X vs Brand Y but The RTAF seem well equipped compared to neighboring nations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Cambodian_Air_Force An easy win over one fighter?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Lao_Air_Force No air shows here?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myanmar_Air_Force A contender! (if they all fly)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Malaysian_Air_Force Smallest land boarder therefore least likely to cause conflict?

yes against Burma, Laos and Cambodia, yes Bangkok does have airplane.

Otherwise the plane, Gripen, that Thailand did ordered are quite basic.

Malaysia and Singapour are on their way to buy plane like Rafale, typhoon, F35 or Rafale, and these are a lot more expensive.

and more high tech.

Are there 2 manufacturers called Rafale?

Singapore, a small city state, controlled by a dynastic dictatorship should not be sold weapons of this capacity. They have no need for them.

[Baerboxer]

how many chickens they gave per plane?

In 2013, the Thai government added US$6.1 billion to its total defense budget, recording a CAGR of 5.14% during the review period (2009-13). The budget is expected to grow at an estimated CAGR of 7.22% over the forecast period (2014-18} and reach US$8.7 billion by 2018. This consistent increase is primarily driven by the need to compensate for the country’s historically low levels of defense spending in the past. Consequently, the Thai Ministry of Defense is expected to acquire a significant amount of materiel during the forecast period.

http://www.asiandefense.com/news_detail.php?id=94

Why on earth would you feel motivated to mock Thailand. I live in Thailand and have a Thai wife and family and take offense to your mockery about chickens. Please don't tell me to get a sense of humor becausse you did not tell a joke. You were trying to belittle Thailand. Mockery is not humor. There is a difference.

Does the history prof recall that Thailand almost bought Russian MIG's because the advantage was they could be paid in chickens? Does the prof remember a German consortium waiting almost a decade for their invoice payment for a piece of highway and as a result a Thai government plane was being grounded in Munich? I like very much the jokes from 'Belg'. Thailand does not have a record of paying bills promptly. Or perhaps the invoice of the scanners.....because part of the money has flown back in some pockets. By the way; Saab is not responsible to deliver the planes in Thailand. The lightning struck is not Saab's responsibility to fix (FOB). Cheers.

Are you privy to the terms of the purchase contract placed by the Thai government with the Swedish supplier? Unless you are you won't know the terms of supply, who is responsible for delivery. and at what point risk and ownership passes.

If you have read the contract and do know the terms and conditions then please say so. If not, then your last statement is your opinion only, not any kind of fact as you try to present it.

[Bender]

You are correct Bender, there was a chicken for planes deal engineered by Thaksin, to great mirth by expats

here. So HistoryProf, think it time to change your name. Regarding mocking Thailand, if it stopped doing

wacky things on virtually daily basis, there would be a lot less to mock. And not really sure why having a wife and

family here would reduce your ability to see the humor of a country announcing a submarine day last week

when they do not have a submarine.

Regarding these planes, just another silly purchase by the 1700 generals to line their own pockets. There is

no identifiable threat from neighboring countries. Thailand borders four countries. Three of them in essence possess

no air force, Cambodia, Laos, and Mynmar. The fourth, Malaysia, actually has a serious air force, that would make short work of Thailand in a air based conflict. The money spent on these silly planes should have been used

to better the lives of the Thai people. After all, that is the intended purpose of a government. But I have a feeling

that would be an odd concept for Thai government officials, who clearly are in a loot loot loot mode before

the next coup throws them out..... :-(

a submarine day... hehe, i wonder if their submarine is stealth(yes i am mocking)

Are there 2 manufacturers called Rafale?

Singapore, a small city state, controlled by a dynastic dictatorship should not be sold weapons of this capacity. They have no need for them.

if you like music and plane, watch this vdo, you will understand why i mentionned Rafale twice

[EyesWideOpen]

I would love to see the impassioned plea the navy put in for its useless aircraft carrier.

" We have an extensive coastline, we MUST be able to defend it against our

war mongering neighbors....Remember 1767, the Burmese could attack again

anytime. An aircraft carrier is the perfect tool !!!!!! "

So toys like these fighter jets are just another way to skim off money by the generals.

And the really funny part is the government caves into these silly objects, as a sort

of protection racket so the military will not engineer a coup and remove the government

from the feeding trough......