Thailand has an aircraft carrier with no aircraft

[Fatty123]

The UK doesn't even have one

I had to check that, as I found it unbelievable. Well, well well. It's true.

They are building 2 new ones though after selling off their previous carriers for scrap. Below is news from the official gov source on the new carriers. As always, the UK takes forever to complete a project (remember the New Wembley?). I'm no expert, but that carrier looks almost ready to me but is gonna take another 5 years or so to be used by the Navy.

Hope it's not like a notorious 'International' school in Thailand. You know, the one (no names so don't ask) with the huge impressive buidling that looks like an old style British public school, but that is actually an empty shell (the real school is a tiny buidling next to it).

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/defence-secretary-gets-update-on-aircraft-carrier-project

Edited February 23, 2015 by Fatty123

[German Viking]

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......

This aircraft carrier it's constructed for surveillance missions, this tasks solve drones better and today.

This Aircraft carrier is so obsolete like a Dinosaur.

[German Viking]

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

I know some guys the made their yachts into 1 way U-Boots, hit a reef etc.

[MAJIC]

The UK doesn't even have one

So I guess Britannia doesn't rule the waves any more?

In 2016 the UK will have a new Toy/Aircraft Carrier, the "HMS Queen Elizabeth"

Edited February 23, 2015 by MAJIC

[German Viking]

The UK doesn't even have one

Yes the Royal Navy does not have a carrier. What a disgrace! In Queen Victoria's reign the Royal Navy was 4 time the size of the sum of other Navies, now nothing.

The times of Sir Francis Drake and Letter of Marques are over.

OMG, I almost forgot Horatio Nelson a real Hero.

[HiSoLowSoNoSo]

They should put all the corrupt Thai politicians and HiSo's on it and just let it drift away with the current.

[German Viking]

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

The last Aircraft Carrier that Australia had sank 2 ships

HMAS Voyager - 82 crew killed

USS Frank E. Evans - 74 crew killed

Only ISIS would want OZ to have a new carrier.

Both Vessels been sunk during manoeuvres.

I guess the Captain of this Aircraft Carrier was a rocket sientist in navigation.

[German Viking]

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

Yeah, their wingspan is too small which means they need a much longer runway to get enough speed to take off with. Even with the steam catapults an aircraft carrier has too short of a deck for the F-16s. Their small wingspan also means they need a much longer runway to land on (because they have to come in at higher speeds than aircraft with larger wingspans). I believe most carrier aircraft also have 2 engines whereas the F-16 is a single engine plane.

In Kandahar they often had to use their braking chutes to slow down when landing (in part due to the higher elevation and temperatures resulting in thinner air, etc, etc). There was even a special crew whose only job was to zip down the runway after an F-16 landed to catch the chutes so they could be repacked/reused and didn't end up tangled in the fences.

As for the carrier, Thailand's best option would be to turn it into a Helicopter Carrier ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helicopter_carrier ). Helicopters are a lot easier to launch/recover obviously, are cheaper so you could have a lot more of them with a variety of functions (attack, transport, anti-submarine, search & rescue, etc). Could be very useful in an area like this (gulf/coastal waters, lots of islands, thick foliage).

It would most likely be too expensive to convert the ship into a proper Amphibious Assault Ship, but some modifications could be done to allow it to launch things like RIBs (Rigid Inflatable Boats) to increase it's functionality. Beef up the air-defense and you'd have a ship that would be a powerful asset in coastal waters (while still being able to operate over the horizon). The problem is, without proper support vessels (and an adequate defence) it becomes a very attractive target to whoever you are using it against.

Next best option would be to sell it to someone else that could actually use it. (Maybe Brunei ? New personal yacht for one of the sheikh's family perhaps ?) The ship is already 18 years old so it won't be long before it requires a refit, even if it's spent most of it's time docked up in port. Use it or lose it as they say. Re-purpose it to a Helicopter/Assault ship, do the refit when it's due and you'll have a decent ship that'll be in service for another 20-30 years. Or sell it now while it still has some value (if it would even be possible to find a buyer).

(Thailand also has a National Submarine Day, 4 Sept, despite not having any submarines since 1951 ! The new Submarine base at Sattahip was supposed to be completed in 2014 I believe, even though the planned purchase of 4 used German subs fell through in 2011.)

We don't having subs, only U-Boots.

[German Viking]

The UK doesn't even have one

The UK is an aircraft carrier.

Yes I agree, caused the continent is isolated as usual.

[German Viking]

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.

German U-Boot Type 214 constructed for shallow waters newest technology.

These U-Boots having 3 propelling option, fuel cells, batteries under water, they can stay for month under water.

Diesel is only used on the surface to propell this U-Boots and to produce in the same time Hydrogene and Oxygene.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_214_submarine

In reliablity performance actuelly the non + ultra.

Singapore bought 2 already and I guess soon 1 or 2 more.

The 218 type it's the update of the 214.

http://www.offiziere.ch/?p=14488

[German Viking]

The UK doesn't even have one

Yes the Royal Navy does not have a carrier. What a disgrace! In Queen Victoria's reign the Royal Navy was 4 time the size of the sum of other Navies, now nothing.

What did they use for the Falkland War? Row boats?

Who the Argentines?

Exocet this was a real shock for UK.

[canman]

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.

Another way to think of it is that in a turn a boat will 'lean' into the turn while a ship will 'lean' away from the turn.

[German Viking]

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"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freeboard_%28nautical%29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centers_of_gravity_in_non-uniform_fields

[retell]

What happened with without?

[rametindallas]

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.

It was built in Spain and was quite capable [for it's time]. Assuming of course you fit it with aircraft, trained crews, an air defense systems, and accompany it with other vessels needed for it's supply and defense. Thailand ran out of funds for all those as soon as it was commissioned.

Thailand has aircraft, the carrier doesn't. The carrier's aircraft were decommissioned ten years ago. F-16s are not carrier aircraft. The carrier lacks catapults as it wasn't designed to have them. Same for arresting cables (Your F-16 would get wet even if it had them, as none of them have hooks...). It is a Harrier (or "Matador", the Spanish version) "jump jet" carrier, thus the small size too. 10,000 nautical mile range is hardly a limitation for Thailand. (I just had to look the range up, as aircraft carriers usually have quite a long range.)

It was designed for the Harrier, a vertical take-off and landing jump-jet and, therefore, didn't need a catapult or arresting cables. For years there was a lone jump-jet on its deck. F-16s do not have the suspension to handle being slammed down on the deck and braked with an arresting cable during a carrier landing; even if you, somehow, installed a tail hook on it. The ship is just too expensive to maintain and operate and would require a support fleet of anti-submarine destroyers and fuel tankers. If Thailand had the money to run this ship, it would be useful in the Malacca Straits where several Thai tankers have been hijacked this past year but it doesn't have the money. Vanity and greed are why Thailand has this ship. Talk about a 'White Elephant', they should have sold it to the Chinese long ago.

A white elephant is a possession which its owner cannot dispose of and whose cost, particularly that of maintenance, is out of proportion to its usefulness. (The term originates in Thailand. How apropos)

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

This article lists many other 'white elephants' around the world.

[sungod]

The UK doesn't even have one

So I guess Britannia doesn't rule the waves any more?

In 2016 the UK will have a new Toy/Aircraft Carrier, the "HMS Queen Elizabeth"

And then we will be the same as Thailand, a carrier with no aircraft. (until 2020)

Edited February 24, 2015 by sungod

[Plowman]

They should put all the corrupt Thai politicians and HiSo's on it and just let it drift away with the current.

Add the military to your list and there would be nobody left to work for the NACC, NCPO, EC, NLA, CDC, PDRC, CC, NRC..........

[pitchag]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

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

Yes we do.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMAS_Melbourne_%28R21%29

Only Aussie ship to sink two friendly ships, now retired