Thai Navy releases document on why it needs submarines

[Ricardo]

If what you are writing is true their helicopters would have been crashing everyday wouldn't it???

<snip for brevity>

Those of us who have been here a while will have no difficulty in recalling crashes, and other lesser problems, with Thai military helicopters.

I understand that your brief is probably to cheer for the military, in this thread, but let's not go 'over-the-top', in an effort to justify or support the un-justifiable ?

Spending money on patrol-craft and other surface-ships, for coastal-defense or fisheries-control, might make sense but buying far-more-expensive submarines for the same role doesn't.

And the RTN have no current hands-on experience with submarines, despite their training-facility, whereas frigates or patrol-boats are something they actually know about.

Sometimes it's better to stick with what you know, than to take an expensive giant-leap into the depths, in an effort to awe the neighbours.

Edited August 3, 2015 by Ricardo

[tuanku]

Thailand already has submarines

Here is one of them in Pattaya.

In the interests of transparency they have many glass windows.

They may be involved in people traffiking though, as the 48 people on board said they had paid large amounts of money to various agents in order to be there.

This particular one may have been moved to the Philippines but I am sure the navy could get it back at substantially less than the cost of a Chinese boat. It can dive to 100m and can remain underwater for 72 hours.

Good for fisheries protection as if a fish happens to be spotted in Thai waters, the submarine could follow it and protect it.

Problem solved, face saved.

[yuv06]

If what you are writing is true their helicopters would have been crashing everyday wouldn't it???

<snip for brevity>

Those of us who have been here a while will have no difficulty in recalling crashes, and other lesser problems, with Thai military helicopters.

I understand that your brief is probably to cheer for the military, in this thread, but let's not go 'over-the-top', in an effort to justify or support the un-justifiable ?

Spending money on patrol-craft and other surface-ships, for coastal-defense or fisheries-control, might make sense but buying far-more-expensive submarines for the same role doesn't.

And the RTN have no current hands-on experience with submarines, despite their training-facility, whereas frigates or patrol-boats are something they actually know about.

Sometimes it's better to stick with what you know, than to take an expensive giant-leap into the depths, in an effort to awe the neighbours.

The crashes were Thai Army helicopters not Thai Navy helicopters! BTW the Army have ordered 21 new UH72A helicopters http://defence-blog.com/?p=2781 and 6 AW139 http://indiandefence.com/threads/thai-army-gets-two-more-aw139-helicopters.43187/ and the Air Force ordered 4 new http://www.shephardmedia.com/news/rotorhub/thailand-orders-four-ec725s-sar-duties/ and from what I understand more MI17 from Russia

BTW all our neighbors did not have hands on experience with submarines until they bought them - so if we don't buy them we won't have hands on experience would we.

We are lucky that the Thai Armed Forces are open about their purchases better than some small little tiny country that does not expose and even secretly buy weapons without the country knowing it like the secret purchase of additional F15 the people even parliament didn't know anything about it until the planes showed up with serial numbers associated with that country in the USA! BTW their 2 new subs cost USD1 billion a piece.

[hawker9000]

If what you are writing is true their helicopters would have been crashing everyday wouldn't it???

<snip for brevity>

Those of us who have been here a while will have no difficulty in recalling crashes, and other lesser problems, with Thai military helicopters.

I understand that your brief is probably to cheer for the military, in this thread, but let's not go 'over-the-top', in an effort to justify or support the un-justifiable ?

Spending money on patrol-craft and other surface-ships, for coastal-defense or fisheries-control, might make sense but buying far-more-expensive submarines for the same role doesn't.

And the RTN have no current hands-on experience with submarines, despite their training-facility, whereas frigates or patrol-boats are something they actually know about.

Sometimes it's better to stick with what you know, than to take an expensive giant-leap into the depths, in an effort to awe the neighbours.

The crashes were Thai Army helicopters not Thai Navy helicopters! BTW the Army have ordered 21 new UH72A helicopters http://defence-blog.com/?p=2781 and 6 AW139 http://indiandefence.com/threads/thai-army-gets-two-more-aw139-helicopters.43187/ and the Air Force ordered 4 new http://www.shephardmedia.com/news/rotorhub/thailand-orders-four-ec725s-sar-duties/ and from what I understand more MI17 from Russia

BTW all our neighbors did not have hands on experience with submarines until they bought them - so if we don't buy them we won't have hands on experience would we.

We are lucky that the Thai Armed Forces are open about their purchases better than some small little tiny country that does not expose and even secretly buy weapons without the country knowing it like the secret purchase of additional F15 the people even parliament didn't know anything about it until the planes showed up with serial numbers associated with that country in the USA! BTW their 2 new subs cost USD1 billion a piece.

And there you go again. All on about what everybody ELSE is doing. "Oh, Mommy, look what Billy has!!! I want one, too!!!" What a pathetic way to try and justify a major expense into what for Thailand would be a new warfare specialty, and essentially even a new technology (which you have even conceded)! Why the heck can't you focus on THAILAND, and address THAILAND'S supposed need for submarines, if indeed you can make that case? Nobody else has been able to - maybe you could be the first. IF you'd first stop whining about and salivating over everybody else's navy!

And you know, this is actually the same rationale being used by these admirals. "Other countries have subs; why can't WE?!" So sad - and so troubling - that senior military officers entrusted with the national security can't get past this mindset and this level of thinking. I'd expect a more balanced perspective from a midshipman!

Edited August 3, 2015 by hawker9000

[yuv06]

If what you are writing is true their helicopters would have been crashing everyday wouldn't it???

<snip for brevity>

Those of us who have been here a while will have no difficulty in recalling crashes, and other lesser problems, with Thai military helicopters.

I understand that your brief is probably to cheer for the military, in this thread, but let's not go 'over-the-top', in an effort to justify or support the un-justifiable ?

Spending money on patrol-craft and other surface-ships, for coastal-defense or fisheries-control, might make sense but buying far-more-expensive submarines for the same role doesn't.

And the RTN have no current hands-on experience with submarines, despite their training-facility, whereas frigates or patrol-boats are something they actually know about.

Sometimes it's better to stick with what you know, than to take an expensive giant-leap into the depths, in an effort to awe the neighbours.

The crashes were Thai Army helicopters not Thai Navy helicopters! BTW the Army have ordered 21 new UH72A helicopters http://defence-blog.com/?p=2781 and 6 AW139 http://indiandefence.com/threads/thai-army-gets-two-more-aw139-helicopters.43187/ and the Air Force ordered 4 new http://www.shephardmedia.com/news/rotorhub/thailand-orders-four-ec725s-sar-duties/ and from what I understand more MI17 from Russia

BTW all our neighbors did not have hands on experience with submarines until they bought them - so if we don't buy them we won't have hands on experience would we.

We are lucky that the Thai Armed Forces are open about their purchases better than some small little tiny country that does not expose and even secretly buy weapons without the country knowing it like the secret purchase of additional F15 the people even parliament didn't know anything about it until the planes showed up with serial numbers associated with that country in the USA! BTW their 2 new subs cost USD1 billion a piece.

And there you go again. All on about what everybody ELSE is doing. "Oh, Mommy, look what Billy has!!! I want one, too!!!" What a pathetic way to try and justify a major expense into what for Thailand would be a new warfare specialty, and essentially even a new technology (which you have even conceded)! Why the heck can't you focus on THAILAND, and address THAILAND'S supposed need for submarines, if indeed you can make that case? Nobody else has been able to - maybe you could be the first. IF you'd first stop whining about and salivating over everybody else's navy!

And you know, this is actually the same rationale being used by these admirals. "Other countries have subs; why can't WE?!" So sad - and so troubling - that senior military officers entrusted with the national security can't get past this mindset and this level of thinking. I'd expect a more balanced perspective from a midshipman!

You can talk about Thailand I can't talk about our neighbors why? USA talks about China!!!! What is the reason???? Usually arms purchases are also based on factors of What neighbors have acquired!

Edited August 3, 2015 by yuv06

[hawker9000]

Those of us who have been here a while will have no difficulty in recalling crashes, and other lesser problems, with Thai military helicopters.

I understand that your brief is probably to cheer for the military, in this thread, but let's not go 'over-the-top', in an effort to justify or support the un-justifiable ?

Spending money on patrol-craft and other surface-ships, for coastal-defense or fisheries-control, might make sense but buying far-more-expensive submarines for the same role doesn't.

And the RTN have no current hands-on experience with submarines, despite their training-facility, whereas frigates or patrol-boats are something they actually know about.

Sometimes it's better to stick with what you know, than to take an expensive giant-leap into the depths, in an effort to awe the neighbours.

The crashes were Thai Army helicopters not Thai Navy helicopters! BTW the Army have ordered 21 new UH72A helicopters http://defence-blog.com/?p=2781 and 6 AW139 http://indiandefence.com/threads/thai-army-gets-two-more-aw139-helicopters.43187/ and the Air Force ordered 4 new http://www.shephardmedia.com/news/rotorhub/thailand-orders-four-ec725s-sar-duties/ and from what I understand more MI17 from Russia

BTW all our neighbors did not have hands on experience with submarines until they bought them - so if we don't buy them we won't have hands on experience would we.

We are lucky that the Thai Armed Forces are open about their purchases better than some small little tiny country that does not expose and even secretly buy weapons without the country knowing it like the secret purchase of additional F15 the people even parliament didn't know anything about it until the planes showed up with serial numbers associated with that country in the USA! BTW their 2 new subs cost USD1 billion a piece.

And there you go again. All on about what everybody ELSE is doing. "Oh, Mommy, look what Billy has!!! I want one, too!!!" What a pathetic way to try and justify a major expense into what for Thailand would be a new warfare specialty, and essentially even a new technology (which you have even conceded)! Why the heck can't you focus on THAILAND, and address THAILAND'S supposed need for submarines, if indeed you can make that case? Nobody else has been able to - maybe you could be the first. IF you'd first stop whining about and salivating over everybody else's navy!

And you know, this is actually the same rationale being used by these admirals. "Other countries have subs; why can't WE?!" So sad - and so troubling - that senior military officers entrusted with the national security can't get past this mindset and this level of thinking. I'd expect a more balanced perspective from a midshipman!

You can talk about Thailand I can't talk about our neighbors why? USA talks about China!!!! What is the reason???? Usually arms purchases are also based on factors of What neighbors have acquired!

<sigh> <wish I could put it in caps..> Because this is thaivisa.com and the topic is about the RTN releasing a document trying to justify its need for submarines! RTN - that's Royal Thai Navy. It's not about the USA or USN, not about China and its PLAN, not about Thailand's neighbors and their navies. Thailand!!!! Plenty of places to talk about all those other countries. Go find one and talk about it there.

================================

But apparently you simply want to make the case that the RTN should have subs because some of its neighboring countries have them. Gotcha'. Big Southeast Asian arms race in submarines, and Thailand must keep up. Lol. Uh,,,, thanks.

Next.

[yuv06]

You can talk about Thailand I can't talk about our neighbors why? USA talks about China!!!! What is the reason???? Usually arms purchases are also based on factors of What neighbors have acquired!

And there you go again. All on about what everybody ELSE is doing. "Oh, Mommy, look what Billy has!!! I want one, too!!!" What a pathetic way to try and justify a major expense into what for Thailand would be a new warfare specialty, and essentially even a new technology (which you have even conceded)! Why the heck can't you focus on THAILAND, and address THAILAND'S supposed need for submarines, if indeed you can make that case? Nobody else has been able to - maybe you could be the first. IF you'd first stop whining about and salivating over everybody else's navy!

And you know, this is actually the same rationale being used by these admirals. "Other countries have subs; why can't WE?!" So sad - and so troubling - that senior military officers entrusted with the national security can't get past this mindset and this level of thinking. I'd expect a more balanced perspective from a midshipman!

<sigh> <wish I could put it in caps..> Because this is thaivisa.com and the topic is about the RTN releasing a document trying to justify its need for submarines! RTN - that's Royal Thai Navy. It's not about the USA or USN, not about China and its PLAN, not about Thailand's neighbors and their navies. Thailand!!!! Plenty of places to talk about all those other countries. Go find one and talk about it there.

================================

But apparently you simply want to make the case that the RTN should have subs because some of its neighboring countries have them. Gotcha'. Big Southeast Asian arms race in submarines, and Thailand must keep up. Lol. Uh,,,, thanks.

Next.

It's the same with Indonesia they have started there arms upgrade because of Singapore - it's not about argument it is a fact and believe me you will be shocked at Indonesia wishlist which is much more extensive than Thailand ex. 200 fighter jets, stealth fighter corporation with S.Korea and the list go on and on.

[hawker9000]

You can talk about Thailand I can't talk about our neighbors why? USA talks about China!!!! What is the reason???? Usually arms purchases are also based on factors of What neighbors have acquired!

And there you go again. All on about what everybody ELSE is doing. "Oh, Mommy, look what Billy has!!! I want one, too!!!" What a pathetic way to try and justify a major expense into what for Thailand would be a new warfare specialty, and essentially even a new technology (which you have even conceded)! Why the heck can't you focus on THAILAND, and address THAILAND'S supposed need for submarines, if indeed you can make that case? Nobody else has been able to - maybe you could be the first. IF you'd first stop whining about and salivating over everybody else's navy!

And you know, this is actually the same rationale being used by these admirals. "Other countries have subs; why can't WE?!" So sad - and so troubling - that senior military officers entrusted with the national security can't get past this mindset and this level of thinking. I'd expect a more balanced perspective from a midshipman!

<sigh> <wish I could put it in caps..> Because this is thaivisa.com and the topic is about the RTN releasing a document trying to justify its need for submarines! RTN - that's Royal Thai Navy. It's not about the USA or USN, not about China and its PLAN, not about Thailand's neighbors and their navies. Thailand!!!! Plenty of places to talk about all those other countries. Go find one and talk about it there.

================================

But apparently you simply want to make the case that the RTN should have subs because some of its neighboring countries have them. Gotcha'. Big Southeast Asian arms race in submarines, and Thailand must keep up. Lol. Uh,,,, thanks.

Next.

It's the same with Indonesia they have started there arms upgrade because of Singapore - it's not about argument it is a fact and believe me you will be shocked at Indonesia wishlist which is much more extensive than Thailand ex. 200 fighter jets, stealth fighter corporation with S.Korea and the list go on and on.

[Ricardo]

Thailand cannot afford an arms-race for purely face-gaining reasons, no matter how many admirals or committees made up of vested-interests recommend them, this isn't the USA trying to drive the USSR into economic-collapse, by getting them to spend unaffordable sums on weapons they don't need.

There are cheaper and better alternatives, than three cheap submarines, to address the RTN's various challenges and tasks.

I would be happy to see them asking for things like patrol-boats or frigates, or modern surveillance-systems like drones, even with the likely brown-envelopes attached.

There is no arms-race with fellow ASEAN members, the threat (if any) is the regional superpower, and they do not need to come by sea.

[yuv06]

Thailand cannot afford an arms-race for purely face-gaining reasons, no matter how many admirals or committees made up of vested-interests recommend them, this isn't the USA trying to drive the USSR into economic-collapse, by getting them to spend unaffordable sums on weapons they don't need.

There are cheaper and better alternatives, than three cheap submarines, to address the RTN's various challenges and tasks.

I would be happy to see them asking for things like patrol-boats or frigates, or modern surveillance-systems like drones, even with the likely brown-envelopes attached.

There is no arms-race with fellow ASEAN members, the threat (if any) is the regional superpower, and they do not need to come by sea.

Why do you think it is face gaining?? Have you ever thought that they are serious about the Gulf of Thailand being blocked?? If you ask experts they will tell that a submarine is best to kill another submarine a surface ship cannot do what a submarine can do

Please read this article and you will know why it is necessary to have a sub it defeats anything the RTN currently has that is how effective a submarine can be http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/sweden-has-a-sub-thats-so-deadly-the-us-navy-hired-it-t-1649695984

[yuv06]

Thailand cannot afford an arms-race for purely face-gaining reasons, no matter how many admirals or committees made up of vested-interests recommend them, this isn't the USA trying to drive the USSR into economic-collapse, by getting them to spend unaffordable sums on weapons they don't need.

There are cheaper and better alternatives, than three cheap submarines, to address the RTN's various challenges and tasks.

I would be happy to see them asking for things like patrol-boats or frigates, or modern surveillance-systems like drones, even with the likely brown-envelopes attached.

There is no arms-race with fellow ASEAN members, the threat (if any) is the regional superpower, and they do not need to come by sea.

Why do you think it is face gaining?? Have you ever thought that they are serious about the Gulf of Thailand being blocked?? If you ask experts they will tell that a submarine is best to kill another submarine a surface ship cannot do what a submarine can do

Please read this article and you will know why it is necessary to have a sub it defeats anything the RTN currently has that is how effective a submarine can be http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/sweden-has-a-sub-thats-so-deadly-the-us-navy-hired-it-t-1649695984

I just don't understand the anti sentiment and do you think we all here are qualified military experts enough to give our opinions and insight to the seriousness of the RTN in considering this purchase for the defense of the nation???

[hawker9000]

Thailand cannot afford an arms-race for purely face-gaining reasons, no matter how many admirals or committees made up of vested-interests recommend them, this isn't the USA trying to drive the USSR into economic-collapse, by getting them to spend unaffordable sums on weapons they don't need.

There are cheaper and better alternatives, than three cheap submarines, to address the RTN's various challenges and tasks.

I would be happy to see them asking for things like patrol-boats or frigates, or modern surveillance-systems like drones, even with the likely brown-envelopes attached.

There is no arms-race with fellow ASEAN members, the threat (if any) is the regional superpower, and they do not need to come by sea.

Why do you think it is face gaining?? Have you ever thought that they are serious about the Gulf of Thailand being blocked?? If you ask experts they will tell that a submarine is best to kill another submarine a surface ship cannot do what a submarine can do

Please read this article and you will know why it is necessary to have a sub it defeats anything the RTN currently has that is how effective a submarine can be http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/sweden-has-a-sub-thats-so-deadly-the-us-navy-hired-it-t-1649695984

I just don't understand the anti sentiment and do you think we all here are qualified military experts enough to give our opinions and insight to the seriousness of the RTN in considering this purchase for the defense of the nation???

Some might be: you really have no way of knowing, do you? But that's not the point. Those commenting here are doing so via point and counterpoint, not for the most part by simply claiming unique expertise. Do you really think that Thailand is at such potential risk of having the Gulf of Thailand blocked (by somebody - I can't really imagine who), that it can justify the need to maintain a submarine force to ensure it stays open?? And do you really think a flotilla consisting of 3 Chinese submarines - not all of which are going to be deployable at once (you're an expert, so you already know that...) - will be sufficient against a credible effort to close it? You must be kidding. Who's going to want to do that? Cambodia? Malaysia? Singapore? Thailand's going to war with one of these countries? You can even imagine that?? Get real. Now if one of the regional or global powers wants to close it, these submarines just aren't going to figure significantly in the calculus at all. They wouldn't even have to send ships - just airdrop a bunch of mines. But minesweepers, or coastal patrol craft with minesweeping capability, just aren't as sexy as submarines, are they?

[yuv06]

Thailand cannot afford an arms-race for purely face-gaining reasons, no matter how many admirals or committees made up of vested-interests recommend them, this isn't the USA trying to drive the USSR into economic-collapse, by getting them to spend unaffordable sums on weapons they don't need.

There are cheaper and better alternatives, than three cheap submarines, to address the RTN's various challenges and tasks.

I would be happy to see them asking for things like patrol-boats or frigates, or modern surveillance-systems like drones, even with the likely brown-envelopes attached.

There is no arms-race with fellow ASEAN members, the threat (if any) is the regional superpower, and they do not need to come by sea.

Why do you think it is face gaining?? Have you ever thought that they are serious about the Gulf of Thailand being blocked?? If you ask experts they will tell that a submarine is best to kill another submarine a surface ship cannot do what a submarine can do

Please read this article and you will know why it is necessary to have a sub it defeats anything the RTN currently has that is how effective a submarine can be http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/sweden-has-a-sub-thats-so-deadly-the-us-navy-hired-it-t-1649695984

I just don't understand the anti sentiment and do you think we all here are qualified military experts enough to give our opinions and insight to the seriousness of the RTN in considering this purchase for the defense of the nation???

Some might be: you really have no way of knowing, do you? But that's not the point. Those commenting here are doing so via point and counterpoint, not for the most part by simply claiming unique expertise. Do you really think that Thailand is at such potential risk of having the Gulf of Thailand blocked (by somebody - I can't really imagine who), that it can justify the need to maintain a submarine force to ensure it stays open?? And do you really think a flotilla consisting of 3 Chinese submarines - not all of which are going to be deployable at once (you're an expert, so you already know that...) - will be sufficient against a credible effort to close it? You must be kidding. Who's going to want to do that? Cambodia? Malaysia? Singapore? Thailand's going to war with one of these countries? You can even imagine that?? Get real. Now if one of the regional or global powers wants to close it, these submarines just aren't going to figure significantly in the calculus at all. They wouldn't even have to send ships - just airdrop a bunch of mines. But minesweepers, or coastal patrol craft with minesweeping capability, just aren't as sexy as submarines, are they?

Hi military expert can you guarantee that the Gulf of Thailand won't be blocked

[hawker9000]

Why do you think it is face gaining?? Have you ever thought that they are serious about the Gulf of Thailand being blocked?? If you ask experts they will tell that a submarine is best to kill another submarine a surface ship cannot do what a submarine can do

Please read this article and you will know why it is necessary to have a sub it defeats anything the RTN currently has that is how effective a submarine can be http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/sweden-has-a-sub-thats-so-deadly-the-us-navy-hired-it-t-1649695984

I just don't understand the anti sentiment and do you think we all here are qualified military experts enough to give our opinions and insight to the seriousness of the RTN in considering this purchase for the defense of the nation???

Some might be: you really have no way of knowing, do you? But that's not the point. Those commenting here are doing so via point and counterpoint, not for the most part by simply claiming unique expertise. Do you really think that Thailand is at such potential risk of having the Gulf of Thailand blocked (by somebody - I can't really imagine who), that it can justify the need to maintain a submarine force to ensure it stays open?? And do you really think a flotilla consisting of 3 Chinese submarines - not all of which are going to be deployable at once (you're an expert, so you already know that...) - will be sufficient against a credible effort to close it? You must be kidding. Who's going to want to do that? Cambodia? Malaysia? Singapore? Thailand's going to war with one of these countries? You can even imagine that?? Get real. Now if one of the regional or global powers wants to close it, these submarines just aren't going to figure significantly in the calculus at all. They wouldn't even have to send ships - just airdrop a bunch of mines. But minesweepers, or coastal patrol craft with minesweeping capability, just aren't as sexy as submarines, are they?

Hi military expert can you guarantee that the Gulf of Thailand won't be blocked

You should read more and bloviate less. Did I SAY it couldn't or wouldn't ever be blocked? You've got enough trouble without putting words in other people's mouths. I suggest you at least remove the foot in yours first.

[yuv06]

Hi military expert can you guarantee that the Gulf of Thailand won't be blocked

You should read more and bloviate less. Did I SAY it couldn't or wouldn't ever be blocked? You've got enough trouble without putting words in other people's mouths. I suggest you at least remove the foot in yours first.

Well I tell you what Mr Military Expert it is RTN money they want it they can buy it they didn't borrow your money so GET LOST I don't think they want your advice go tell Singapore they don't need a Sub

Edited August 4, 2015 by yuv06

[yuv06]

Hi military expert can you guarantee that the Gulf of Thailand won't be blocked

You should read more and bloviate less. Did I SAY it couldn't or wouldn't ever be blocked? You've got enough trouble without putting words in other people's mouths. I suggest you at least remove the foot in yours first.

Well I tell you what Mr Military Expert it is RTN money they want it they can buy it they didn't borrow your money so GET LOST I don't think they want your advice go tell Singapore they don't need a Sub

The above message is for hawker9000

[hawker9000]

Hi military expert can you guarantee that the Gulf of Thailand won't be blocked

You should read more and bloviate less. Did I SAY it couldn't or wouldn't ever be blocked? You've got enough trouble without putting words in other people's mouths. I suggest you at least remove the foot in yours first.

Well I tell you what Mr Military Expert it is RTN money they want it they can buy it they didn't borrow your money so GET LOST I don't think they want your advice go tell Singapore they don't need a Sub

Oh my. "GET LOST" he says. Any other orders or commandments? My, my, my. Where DID I put that permission slip from you to post?? 'Guess I should consider it revoked now, huh? LOL. I think I'll just continue to post my comments here, thanks. You're right about one thing though, SOMEBODY here is seriously lost ...

[MZurf]

Hi military expert can you guarantee that the Gulf of Thailand won't be blocked

You should read more and bloviate less. Did I SAY it couldn't or wouldn't ever be blocked? You've got enough trouble without putting words in other people's mouths. I suggest you at least remove the foot in yours first.

Well I tell you what Mr Military Expert it is RTN money they want it they can buy it they didn't borrow your money so GET LOST I don't think they want your advice go tell Singapore they don't need a Sub

It is not RTN money, it is Thai taxpayers/citizens money!

[metisdead]

Inflammatory post in call caps has been removed as well as the replies.

[Nigeone]

If the Gulf of Thailand was blocked it wouldn't be by maylasia Singapore etc. It would only be China. And what do you think the rest of the world would do. USA ,UK etc would be all over this. And if I was a attacking power I would take out the sub base in the first hour and that would be the end of that. With technology as it is today if the subs were at sea they would be taken out by aircraft in one way or another. Surface ships/ fast attack hardware is what's needed. The subs are a accident going to happen ! Not waiting to happen. If they get them and I think they probably will I have said before I give the first one under 1 year before an serious incident happens. Either grounding or needing crew rescued. Which is another issue. Oh well sit back and watch the fun. Sad if some crew lose there lives though!

Edited August 4, 2015 by Nigeone

[yuv06]

If the Gulf of Thailand was blocked it wouldn't be by maylasia Singapore etc. It would only be China. And what do you think the rest of the world would do. USA ,UK etc would be all over this. And if I was a attacking power I would take out the sub base in the first hour and that would be the end of that. With technology as it is today if the subs were at sea they would be taken out by aircraft in one way or another. Surface ships/ fast attack hardware is what's needed. The subs are a accident going to happen ! Not waiting to happen. If they get them and I think they probably will I have said before I give the first one under 1 year before an serious incident happens. Either grounding or needing crew rescued. Which is another issue. Oh well sit back and watch the fun. Sad if some crew lose there lives though!

Are you trying to be funny? China?? It is more likely to be the USA and her sidekick friends like Singapore, UK, Australia! Who is currently playing politics with Thailand???? This clearly shows your lack of knowledge for the past 50 years in this region or you must have been reading too much western MSM. China has stuck with Thailand and aided Thailand during the financial crisis unlike the west who imposed harsh measures through their puppet IMF so they could get their greedy hands on Thai assets! China on the other hand providing credits, loans, extensions, that allowed Thailand to maintain some vital economic assets! They aided us during the Vietnamese occupation of Cambodia and even attacked Northern Vietnam to put pressure on Vietnam when Thai and Vietnamese had serious escalation in fighting along the Thai - Cambodian border.

Why is everybody so scared the Thailand acquire submarines??? It is because it is a very effective weapon even against superpowers! Because read link http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/sweden-has-a-sub-thats-so-deadly-the-us-navy-hired-it-t-1649695984

So surface ships fast attack hardware???? Why??? Subs are better at sub killing!!! How much is all these hardware going to cost?? Let me run the figures for you:

1. P8 - USD250 million per plane - lets say we need 6 USD1.5 billion

2. Helicopter carriers USD1.5 billion per ship - lets say we need 2 USD3 billion and another USD1.5 billion for anti-submarine helicopters

3. Advanced frigates which Thailand has already ordered 2 from South Korea at USD500 a piece - so we would need more lets say 6 more USD3 billion

Total USD9 billion??? against lets say total 9 subs USD3 billion

Any serious incident as you claim within 1 year won't happen by China but it might happen with the USA given their past records of war mongering and currently trying to instigate a war with Russia.

[Fat Haggis]

Curious to know what's your rank in the RTN yuv06, and how long have you been a submariner?

[yuv06]

Curious to know what's your rank in the RTN yuv06, and how long have you been a submariner?

Curious about Fat Haggis and how long he has been a submariner also

[gk10002000]

Goodness. There is no need for run silent run deep. You are patrolling your own waters. Use cheap airplanes, even some of the Drones or unmanned Air Vehicles that are available. Patrol boats, aerostats/blimps are a viable option. Granted being sneaky may help you catch a few more unsuspecting crooks, but being seen can also deter them from trying. But submarines in shallow domestic coastal waters? Poor operational concept.

[yuv06]

Goodness. There is no need for run silent run deep. You are patrolling your own waters. Use cheap airplanes, even some of the Drones or unmanned Air Vehicles that are available. Patrol boats, aerostats/blimps are a viable option. Granted being sneaky may help you catch a few more unsuspecting crooks, but being seen can also deter them from trying. But submarines in shallow domestic coastal waters? Poor operational concept.

Tell that to our neighbors! I don't get it when other countries in this region buy subs everybody is OK but when RTN wants them everybody takes a hit! We all share the same body of water in this region it is on the same plateau the depth is similar to Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia, Brunei, Cambodia all facing the Gulf of Thailand so what is the issue here???

[hawker9000]

Goodness. There is no need for run silent run deep. You are patrolling your own waters. Use cheap airplanes, even some of the Drones or unmanned Air Vehicles that are available. Patrol boats, aerostats/blimps are a viable option. Granted being sneaky may help you catch a few more unsuspecting crooks, but being seen can also deter them from trying. But submarines in shallow domestic coastal waters? Poor operational concept.

Tell that to our neighbors! I don't get it when other countries in this region buy subs everybody is OK but when RTN wants them everybody takes a hit! We all share the same body of water in this region it is on the same plateau the depth is similar to Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia, Brunei, Cambodia all facing the Gulf of Thailand so what is the issue here???

"Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia, Brunei, Cambodia all facing the Gulf of Thailand"

Not really. Cambodia & Vietnam do. But Vietnam's major coastline, including the Mekong River Delta and most of its seaports, are either on the South China Sea or Tonkin Gulf. The other countries you name are all South China Sea (and other, e.g., Java Sea). Cambodia, well, whatever one's opinion on their need for them, this thread isn't about Cambodia, is it?

"The neighbors have them" is a very juvenile and shallow rationale for spending so much money for something with such limited and highly situational (If any at all ...) usefulness, that Thailand isn't at all likely going to be able to competently operate or maintain without utter reliance on their Chinese supplier.

[yuv06]

Goodness. There is no need for run silent run deep. You are patrolling your own waters. Use cheap airplanes, even some of the Drones or unmanned Air Vehicles that are available. Patrol boats, aerostats/blimps are a viable option. Granted being sneaky may help you catch a few more unsuspecting crooks, but being seen can also deter them from trying. But submarines in shallow domestic coastal waters? Poor operational concept.

Tell that to our neighbors! I don't get it when other countries in this region buy subs everybody is OK but when RTN wants them everybody takes a hit! We all share the same body of water in this region it is on the same plateau the depth is similar to Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia, Brunei, Cambodia all facing the Gulf of Thailand so what is the issue here???

"Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia, Brunei, Cambodia all facing the Gulf of Thailand"

Not really. Cambodia & Vietnam do. But Vietnam's major coastline, including the Mekong River Delta and most of its seaports, are either on the South China Sea or Tonkin Gulf. The other countries you name are all South China Sea (and other, e.g., Java Sea). Cambodia, well, whatever one's opinion on their need for them, this thread isn't about Cambodia, is it?

"The neighbors have them" is a very juvenile and shallow rationale for spending so much money for something with such limited and highly situational (If any at all ...) usefulness, that Thailand isn't at all likely going to be able to competently operate or maintain without utter reliance on their Chinese supplier.

The neighbors such as Indonesia, Singapore and Malaysia operate in the same environment, however Thailand and Indonesia have the deeper parts so it is juvenile and shallow rationale to refer to the Gulf of Thailand being not deep enough! And all your arguments are also applied for those countries already operating subs. If the RTN were the first to operate subs I would highly agree not to buy any, however we are the 5th country in this region that is deciding to operate a sub! If we don't sooner or later Laos and Thailand will be the only countries without subs! Get it????

The Yuan class use German engines, Swedish AIP and French Senors the other benefit that the German and Swedish sub lack is to launch cruise missiles

[Jai Dee]

Several posts containing baiting and trolling have been removed from this thread.

[metisdead]

A post commenting on moderation has been removed as well as a reply.

[Fat Haggis]

I will ask the question again, directed at yuv06, you appear to be very knowledgeable, with regards to these particular Submarines, and as to the reasoning behind the desire to have them, despite strong criticism from the PM himself.

Are you a Thai National serving in the Royal Thai Navy, that you seem to be in possession of more knowledge than your average Joe here ?

The reason I ask, is that if you're indeed posting with first hand knowledge, then you deserve that respect, if not, and you're a farang with just another faceless name on a forum, with an opinion that at the end of the day doesn't matter.