Thailand has an aircraft carrier with no aircraft

[webfact]

Thailand has an aircraft carrier with no aircraft
JEREMY BENDER

BANGKOK -- For a brief period in the late 1990s, Thailand was the only country in southeast Asia that possessed one of the ultimate symbols of military strength: an aircraft carrier.

Its carrier, the HTMS Chakri Naruebet, was meant to be a point of pride for Thailand and symbolize the developing country’s power.

Then the late 1990s Asian financial crisis hit Thailand. Bangkok’s grand plans for its carrier were significantly hobbled. Commissioned in 1997, the same year the financial crisis struck the country, the Chakri Naruebet — which means “Sovereign of the Chakri dynasty,” the Thai monarchy’s ruling family — was mostly consigned to sitting in port due to lack of funding.

Now, according to The Motley Fool, Asia has plenty of aircraft carriers, as China, India, Japan, and South Korea all have carriers of different sizes. Not wanting to be left out, Singapore is on its way to constructing a carrier too.

All this competition has only made Thailand’s once-proud carrier look like a bizarre reminder of the country’s dysfunction, rather than the symbol of growing prestige that it was intended to be.

Full story: http://www.businessinsider.sg/thailands-aircraft-carrier-has-no-aircraft-2015-2/

-- BUSINESS INSIDER 2015-02-23

[arthurboy]

Wonder what the cut was and has been for those in charge of the original procurement and those responsible for the ongoing maintenance costs?

[mrtoad]

The UK doesn't even have one

[EnzoRippo]

All of us know that this is just Kick Back carrier.

Like any army's purchase.

[Rod Wallop]

All of us know that this is just Kick Back carrier.

Like any army's purchase.

Why not buy something cheaper like a pool table?

[WitawatWatawit]

It also has a submarine base with trained submariners - but no submarines. And bloody big balloons that don't ... err, balloon.

[chooka]

Aust doesn't have one, we have a couple of tinnies with spare oars thats about it

[Loptr]

Not only does this carrier not have any aircraft after the retirement of the Harriers, it is also the smallest carrier in all of Asia... Oh the horror...

[Jessi]

Wonder what the cut was and has been for those in charge of the original procurement and those responsible for the ongoing maintenance costs?

shhhhhhhhhh dont ask questions like that. Never would happen in Thailand.

Thailand The Hub of Happiness.

[NeverSure]

It was built by France and is a joke. It isn't true that Thailand doesn't have aircraft. It has F-16's. The carrier lacks catapults and can't launch aircraft. It can't catch them either due to a lack of arresting cables. The carrier is also way too small, isn't nuclear powered and can't go far.

Thailand wanted to be top dog with the first aircraft carrier among its peers in Asia but now several countries such as S. Korea, Japan, etc. have actual working carriers.

Thailand's carrier would make a great habitat for marine life if they'd just sink it.

[bkkjames]

Can f16's take off on carriers?

[trogers]

Ahhh...the country's aircraft carrier has no aircrafts since 1997, but a Thai PM after this date had a personal jet paid by the country.

Shows the importance of an individual over an entire country.

[Gsxrnz]

Q. What do you call a small aircraft carrier with no aircraft?

A. A boat.

Mind you, being Thailand they'll probably fit sails to the thing (at a cost of 28 trillion baht) and call it a yacht.

[Loptr]

Can f16's take off on carriers?

No, F16's have never been used as carrier based aircraft...

[baboon]

Ahhh...the country's aircraft carrier has no aircrafts since 1997, but a Thai PM after this date had a personal jet paid by the country.

Shows the importance of an individual over an entire country.

What is more likely to happen: Thailand going to war or its Prime Minister travelling a substantial distance to a destination not served by THAI?

[bkkjames]

Can f16's take off on carriers?

No, F16's have never been used as carrier based aircraft...

Thanks, thought that was the case but wasn't sure lol

[trogers]

Ahhh...the country's aircraft carrier has no aircrafts since 1997, but a Thai PM after this date had a personal jet paid by the country.

Shows the importance of an individual over an entire country.

What is more likely to happen: Thailand going to war or its Prime Minister travelling a substantial distance to a destination not served by THAI?

Ahhh...PMs of all the other ASEAN countries would not be so well travelled then as they do not get a personal jet.

[baboon]

Ahhh...the country's aircraft carrier has no aircrafts since 1997, but a Thai PM after this date had a personal jet paid by the country.

Shows the importance of an individual over an entire country.

What is more likely to happen: Thailand going to war or its Prime Minister travelling a substantial distance to a destination not served by THAI?

Ahhh...PMs of all the other ASEAN countries would not be so well travelled then as they do not get a personal jet.

So they get to keep it when they are no longer in office as it is a personal jet?

[khwaibah]

Not only does this carrier not have any aircraft after the retirement of the Harriers, it is also the smallest carrier in all of Asia... Oh the horror...

Just as Thai men have the smallest

[canman]

Q. What do you call a small aircraft carrier with no aircraft?

A. A boat.

Mind you, being Thailand they'll probably fit sails to the thing (at a cost of 28 trillion baht) and call it a yacht.

It's only submarines which are refered to as a 'boat'

[trogers]

Ahhh...the country's aircraft carrier has no aircrafts since 1997, but a Thai PM after this date had a personal jet paid by the country.

Shows the importance of an individual over an entire country.

What is more likely to happen: Thailand going to war or its Prime Minister travelling a substantial distance to a destination not served by THAI?

Ahhh...PMs of all the other ASEAN countries would not be so well travelled then as they do not get a personal jet.

So they get to keep it when they are no longer in office as it is a personal jet?

Personal jet for the office. A trinket created by that PM. After he was no longer in office, no one wanted it and was sold.

Is Singapore going to war? It is building it's own carrier now.

[khwaibah]

It was built by France and is a joke. It isn't true that Thailand doesn't have aircraft. It has F-16's. The carrier lacks catapults and can't launch aircraft. It can't catch them either due to a lack of arresting cables. The carrier is also way too small, isn't nuclear powered and can't go far.

Thailand wanted to be top dog with the first aircraft carrier among its peers in Asia but now several countries such as S. Korea, Japan, etc. have actual working carriers.

Thailand's carrier would make a great habitat for marine life if they'd just sink it.

It was built is Spain not France. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTMS_Chakri_Naruebet

[baboon]

Ahhh...the country's aircraft carrier has no aircrafts since 1997, but a Thai PM after this date had a personal jet paid by the country.

Shows the importance of an individual over an entire country.

What is more likely to happen: Thailand going to war or its Prime Minister travelling a substantial distance to a destination not served by THAI?

Ahhh...PMs of all the other ASEAN countries would not be so well travelled then as they do not get a personal jet.

So they get to keep it when they are no longer in office as it is a personal jet?

Personal jet for the office. A trinket created by that PM. After he was no longer in office, no one wanted it and was sold.

Is Singapore going to war? It is building it's own carrier now.

And your point is, in relation to this thread? Let me take a wild guess...

[h90]

It was built by France and is a joke. It isn't true that Thailand doesn't have aircraft. It has F-16's. The carrier lacks catapults and can't launch aircraft. It can't catch them either due to a lack of arresting cables. The carrier is also way too small, isn't nuclear powered and can't go far.

Thailand wanted to be top dog with the first aircraft carrier among its peers in Asia but now several countries such as S. Korea, Japan, etc. have actual working carriers.

Thailand's carrier would make a great habitat for marine life if they'd just sink it.

And an aircraft carrier is an attack weapon to operate airplanes far away of your borders. What possible scenario would require Thailand use it?

Best use for it: park some airplanes on it, find some escort vessels and sink it a popular tourist spot for scuba diving and artificial reef.

An aircraft carrier would surely attract lots of diver and with the sunk escort vessels there will be enough to explore......

[Emster23]

Gotta start somewhere.... It's all about appearances, not sense or usefulness.... in my home country (USA) we prefer to build bridges to nowhere.... Maybe like "Field of Dreams" they think if they have a carrier, the planes will flock there? I know my balcony flocks those darn pigeons...

[samsensam]

they have a submarine or two as well. dont mess with the thai military.

[splodger]

The UK doesn't even have one

Two under construction,(Queen Elizabeth class)but no aircraft

[canopus1969]

Q. What do you call a small aircraft carrier with no aircraft?

A. A boat.

Mind you, being Thailand they'll probably fit sails to the thing (at a cost of 28 trillion baht) and call it a yacht.

It's only submarines which are refered to as a 'boat'

I had a boat - and it certainly was not a submarine

[bangon04]

It was built by France and is a joke. It isn't true that Thailand doesn't have aircraft. It has F-16's. The carrier lacks catapults and can't launch aircraft. It can't catch them either due to a lack of arresting cables. The carrier is also way too small, isn't nuclear powered and can't go far.

Thailand wanted to be top dog with the first aircraft carrier among its peers in Asia but now several countries such as S. Korea, Japan, etc. have actual working carriers.

Thailand's carrier would make a great habitat for marine life if they'd just sink it.

And an aircraft carrier is an attack weapon to operate airplanes far away of your borders. What possible scenario would require Thailand use it?

Best use for it: park some airplanes on it, find some escort vessels and sink it a popular tourist spot for scuba diving and artificial reef.

An aircraft carrier would surely attract lots of diver and with the sunk escort vessels there will be enough to explore......

I thought the idea was to have the biggest and most impressive Royal Yacht in the world....

[seajae]

any doubts about Thailands news reporters can now be put to bed, the aircraft carrier was commissioned in 1997 and they reporters are only now realizing the country has one and no aircraft for it, wow, 18 years to actually realize/ report it, shows how intelligent and on top of things these morons are. Any wonder they want the press to be reformed, what a pack of losers, no wonder there is never any truth or meaning to any of the newspaper articles, the reporters are all hopeless.