ThaidaGwaii Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 Get rid of it. Waste of tax payers money. Maybe turn it into a hotel and casino? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikemac Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 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... I doubt very much that your balcony could actually "flock" a pigeon, Em, but if it did happen please post pics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commerce Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 I have a dick which delivers dead seamen, but it still has a function. There's no need to knock a dysfunctionally erect construction when it can deliver pleasure to the many when visiting, as simply in its stauts and non-performance. In fact, delivery of laymen cavalry is almost akin to fair and mild warfare, in that penetration doesn't result in robust affliction to a large population. Thus, there's nothing wrong in wishing to have a static function on display, rather than offering danger to the opposing party; such can indeed be advantageous. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
metisdead Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 Off topic posts and replies have been removed. This is not about poverty or income comparisons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rinrada Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 The UK doesn't even have one The Queen Elizabeth II is due to be launched soon I believe; and it's slated as being one of the largest in the world. http://www.queenelizabethcruises.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/CVF-queen-elizabeth-class-aircraft-carrier.jpg Called the Queen Elizabeth...(but without the 11)...maybe a minor point but UK/GB has only ever had a QE1 (queen)...The Cunard ship...which I actually worked on....put in the first Telstar sat nav interface...long time ago.....was called the QE2....ie the number 2...for obvious reasons. Anyway RN/MOD are hoping...praying even.. that one day they will equip the new one with 48 x F-35Bs...look nice.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mercman24 Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 come on you "cheap charlies" we can all chip in, and donate a Sopwith Camel" and a catapult 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nottocus Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 Remember going on a school trip to see the carrier. Thai students were allowed on as were Thai teachers. Western teachers weren't allowed on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sealbash Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 It also has a submarine base with trained submariners - but no submarines. And bloody big balloons that don't ... err, balloon.Yes, the King wisely pointed out, the previous time the military were in power and they wanted to buy one, that the Gulf of Thailand is too shallow for submarines. Now the new Military Government wants to buy submarines again. Perhaps there is a coast of Thailand not in the Gulf? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HiSoLowSoNoSo Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 Remember going on a school trip to see the carrier. Thai students were allowed on as were Thai teachers. Western teachers weren't allowed on. They were probably afraid of losing face to the westerners (seeing an aircraft carrier with no aircraft) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
khwaibah Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 In 1989 The Blue Diamond debacle erupted between Thailand and Saudi Arabia ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Diamond_Affair ) which is still ongoing. The HTMS Chakri Naruebet made her maiden voyage from Spain to Thailand in March 1997 threw the Red Sea. She made a historical port call at Jeddha Saudia Arabia which was the first official exchange of recognition from each country since the outset. It was that visit of The HTMS Chakri Naruebet to Jeddah that I first saw her. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Star Dust Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 Imagine we rename the aircraft carrier "Pok Pok", plant a whole bunch of Papaya Trees on top of it, and modified it into one giant floating "Som Tam Cattier" featuring authentic A GO GO, LIVE Music, Pool, Room 4 Rent, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IMA_FARANG Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 It may seem silly but an aircrasft carrier does NOT need aircraft to be functional. I make no comment on Thailand"s aircraft carrier, or how it is actually used. But I would like to point out that in an emergecy in an island area with no available airfields an aircraft carrier can indeed seve as a mobile helicopter landing area for rescue and relief helicopters for those islands. As an example, during a relief operation in an area devastated by a Typhoon, such as in the Philipines an aircraft carrier , even without aircraft, would serve as a base for the landing and dispatch of rescue helicopters. In fact, that is exactly why a U.S. aircraft carrier was sent to and used in relief operations after a typhoon in the Philipines, when the local airfield was badly damaged by the typhoon. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hhinhh Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 Wonder what the cut was and has been for those in charge of the original procurement and those responsible for the ongoing maintenance costs? Does not matter, also Marines need a driving range and tennis court while on duty on the ocean. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theslime Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 So somehow funnelling state money directly into the hands of the poor via the rice scheme is corruption but ridiculous multi-billion baht military purchases such as useless aircraft carriers, submarine bases and toy bomb detectors are not! Here is the very definition of what ails Thailand, should the state use its money to help the people or line the pockets of the military. The People. and not just in Thailand. Oz is screwing the most vunerable but still spending billions on jets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post jdinasia Posted February 23, 2015 Popular Post Share Posted February 23, 2015 It may seem silly but an aircrasft carrier does NOT need aircraft to be functional. I make no comment on Thailand"s aircraft carrier, or how it is actually used. But I would like to point out that in an emergecy in an island area with no available airfields an aircraft carrier can indeed seve as a mobile helicopter landing area for rescue and relief helicopters for those islands. As an example, during a relief operation in an area devastated by a Typhoon, such as in the Philipines an aircraft carrier , even without aircraft, would serve as a base for the landing and dispatch of rescue helicopters. In fact, that is exactly why a U.S. aircraft carrier was sent to and used in relief operations after a typhoon in the Philipines, when the local airfield was badly damaged by the typhoon. Helicopters are aircraft. This ship has been used when the tsunami hit in '04 and more recently when there was flooding and washouts due to rain near Koh Phangan 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
socksy01 Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 Remember going on a school trip to see the carrier. Thai students were allowed on as were Thai teachers. Western teachers weren't allowed on. Probably banned to avoid spying and stealing knowledge of expertise and modern technology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fullstop Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 There is no reliable definition on what exactly is a boat. My favourite definition goes to the where the COG is. On a boat the COG is below the freeboard while on a ship it is above. Now all us land lubbers need are definitions for "COG" and "freeboard" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rubl Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 (edited) So somehow funnelling state money directly into the hands of the poor via the rice scheme is corruption but ridiculous multi-billion baht military purchases such as useless aircraft carriers, submarine bases and toy bomb detectors are not! Here is the very definition of what ails Thailand, should the state use its money to help the people or line the pockets of the military. Somehow funnelling state money in the hands of the poor is a miracle and didn't happen. The 'multi-billion Baht' spend on 'bomb detectors' that seems to be closer to 800 to 900 million Baht between 2004 and 2009. February 2010 Abhisit scrapped any remaining orders. Anyway the aircraft carrier, ordered in 1992, was commissioned in August 1997, a month after the financial crash had started. Been laying around ever since. Too big, but Prodprasop may have contemplated for a moment its use to push back water, that was during the 2011 Flood Crisis. BTW SAAB of Sweden should be close to being finished now with the upgrade of the Command and Control System they received in 2012. http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=444 Edited February 23, 2015 by rubl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billd766 Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 There is no reliable definition on what exactly is a boat. My favourite definition goes to the where the COG is. On a boat the COG is below the freeboard while on a ship it is above. Now all us land lubbers need are definitions for "COG" and "freeboard" Speaking as a "crabfat" which is a very derogatory Royal Navy slang for a member of the RAF perhaps I can help. A little history for you first. http://www.arrse.co.uk/wiki/The_Royal_Air_Force Origins of 'Crab'While some of the explanations below are derived from or purported to be the "official" version the RAF have been named "crabs" due to the fact that they have no limit to the number of sideways paces they can do as a drill movement. While army and navy have a fixed limit of sideways paces the RAF can actually march the entire width of a parade ground sideways. Once upon a time, the RAF flew Spitfires with tail wheels near the tail and huge Merlin engines at the front. This meant that during taxiing, all they could see to the front was an enormous engine. In order to see what was in front of them, they had to look over the side and zigzag, thus they'd be moving sideways. On landing, they would sideslip to lose height. Because of airfield security, the only time land-locked mortals got to see the RAF anywhere near close up was during landing, take-off and taxiing, when they were moving sideways. Since only crabs walk sideways, clearly the RAF was staffed by crabs. Coupled with the fact that the Fleet Air Arm attracted all the best pilots and the Army always won inter-service regattas, a once popular forces T-shirt logo read: 'Fly Navy.Sail Army. Walk Sideways!' Another more plausible explanation as to why the RN refer to the RAF as 'crabs' goes back to the days of rum, sodomy and the lash (about last week in fact). One of the more unsavoury aspects of the average matelot was his unfortunate habit of contracting pubic lice or "crabs" during his shore leave. The treatment for this condition was to get a chum or shipmate to apply a liberal application of a greasy blue/grey ointment (known affectionately as "crab fat") to the affected area. The proper name for the ointment was Blue Unction. With the RN's usual powers of wit and sophistication the RAF were thereafter referred to as 'crab fats' (or crabs for short) as their blue/grey uniform was exactly the same colour as the stuff that the filthy little ratings rubbed on their swollen and lice-ravaged goolies. The RAF by contrast affectionately refer to the Royal Navy as Bum Boys or Fish Heads. The Army are Pongos, Brown Jobs or Grunts. http://www.funtrivia.com/askft/Question24925.html According to this site - http://www.pull-up-a-sandbag.com/Dictionary.htm - this is the definition - Crabs: the RAF (when asked something, they shrug their shoulders and walk off sideways). or From http://www.btinternet.com/~a.c.walton/navy/smn-faq/slang1.htm - Crab, crabfat - (RN) A member of the Royal Air Force. From the light blue color of the uniform, which is the same as that of the grease (known as ‘crabfat’) used on gun breeches, etc., in the RN. Accounts vary, but apparently the grease was called ‘crabfat’ because it resembled in color the ointment used to treat sailors for ‘crabs’ (pediculosis pubis, genital lice), and of which fat was a major constituent. None of it is true about the RAF. COG is the Centre Of Gravity The higher the COG the more unstable the vehicle or boat becomes which means that if it is heavier at the top 20% for example then it will not take much more on the top to make it fall over. As an example if a ship is balanced around its centre point and is sailing in the Artic then sea water will freeze on the upper surfaces making them heavier with the possibility of the ship capsizing as the top becomes heavier than the bottom causing the COG to rise. Free board is the distance from the deck to the waterline. If the freeboard is low then waves can wash over the decks and possibly cause flooding. This of course is connected with the COG as if that becomes too low and more water comes on board then the ship sinks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robbie Dye Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 New cruises of Pattaya Bay?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johpa Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 Then the late 1990s Asian financial crisis hit Thailand. Bangkoks 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 monarchys ruling family was mostly consigned to sitting in port due to lack of funding. The pathetic story of the HTMS Chakri Naruebet has been noted by myself and others here in this forum many times over the past many years. The lack of funding had nothing to do with the 1997 financial crisis. There was never any intent to operate this ship in the capacity of an aircraft carrier, it was always simply and excuse to skim 30% off a contract. However, a deserving name to a deserving ship. Chaiyo! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScarpoFongness4U Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 Will no one state the obvious? Thai media is quoting "The Motley Fool?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
German Viking Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 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? Yes, good idea not only cheap purchase costs, also almost zero maintenance costs and more fun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MAJIC Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 (edited) The UK doesn't even have one But there is one under construction,and should be handed over to the MOD in 2016 "The HMS Queen Elizabeth" http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-and-latest-activity/features/equipped-for-the-future Edited February 23, 2015 by MAJIC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
German Viking Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 It also has a submarine base with trained submariners - but no submarines. And bloody big balloons that don't ... err, balloon. In germany we having a finished produced U-Boot newest and actually best technology which is available, was for the greek, but they don't like to pay. 500 Mill. € cash on the table and the deal is done. https://www.griechenland.net/nachrichten/wirtschaft/17182-griechenland-l%C3%A4sst-ein-neues-u-boot-vom-stapel-laufen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
German Viking Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 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. To sink this piece of rubbish would be the best solution, getting ridd of this bloody maintenance costs and create a new marine dive park and charge the tourists > 1000 THB, could be a big business in the furture. Great idea mate. You would do it and I would do it and many others also, but not the Thai Gov. to much face to loose. Anyway there is still some hope, that the greedyness(common sence) wins against the loss of face. LOS "Land of Solutions" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
German Viking Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 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. Maybe not enough, caused you have to design and build special masts, beams and sails this will costs a fortune. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
German Viking Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 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' U-Boot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
German Viking Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 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 This Aircraft Carrier is only constructed for Helicopters and the Harrier. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowyy73 Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 maybe it will become a tourist attraction like HTMS Lanta Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now