Pheu Thai opens fire at submarine deal

[miamiman123]

Why does Thailand need subs? The money is somewhere else?

[FitnessHealthTravel]

They can always rent them out of the weekends, come on, let's be positive here. Pokemon, sub adventures etc

[Eric Loh]

1 hour ago, TKDfella said:

Well, while I am certainly no expert on logistics etc might it be  a question of geography? Only a small portion of Thailand is flanked by the Andaman Sea while other central regions face the Gulf of Thailand. Most of the other countries you mention are basically flanked by large portions of sea area. The Gulf of Thailand can be more easily protected anti-submarine measures. This is just a thought and I haven't really looked at it in detail.

I think more of cost benefits among other more suitable alternatives. The cost benefits are pretty obvious that the submarines will add nothing much to might of the military with no imminent enemies. Plus the fact that the submarines have many technical limitation. Add to the established fact that the military bad historic records of bad decisions and poor maintenance of major military hardwares.

 

Other alternatives are striking in that our economy is struggling and our revenues have stagnated. The submarine money can be better use to finance economy and human resource projects or even a marketing program to entice FDI which we are severely lacking. 

 

The military has already increased defense budget by +4% while healthcare and education have not although seriously important.

 

Better for the military to delay buying the submarines, tanks and planes until our economy is back to the 6-7% GDP growth we once enjoyed before the 2 coups caused immense structural damage to the economy.

[realenglish1]

This is a white elephant 

 

I have apposed the Sub from the beginning We are not at war and the only thing the sub would sink now at 

sea would be a nefarious  boat full of foreigners .

 

The is also NO economic benefit to the Thais since it is being built  in China

 

So much opposition to this Let's see what the junta does 

[Deez]

These subs will be used to protect the "Happy Zone"

[Zyxel]

5 hours ago, Wilsonandson said:

Indonesia - 4 submarines
Vietnam - 6 submarines
Malaysia - 2 submarines
Singapore - 6 submarines
Thailand - orders 3 submarines

Why can't Thailand have submarines?

Current Military Strength Rankings

1 - Indonesia
2 - Thailand
3 - Vietnam
4 - Malaysia
5 - Singapore

I agree with you and you could also have mentioned that these countries have subs on order.

Thailand does not want a fleet of subs a la Kriegsmarine, just a couple.

Subs are essential part of a navy force.

Subs have many different missions, not only submerge and launch torpedoes.

The purchase of the aircraft carrier was a stupid thing decided by a civilian government decades ago, today Thailand wants a couple of subs in a increasing tension environment, so why don't we stop comparing apples and oranges.

It will take years for Thailand to get their subs and train officers and crews, may-be too late already if a conflict emerge in South China Sea.

Thailand will not use their subs in the gulf of Thailand nor their enemies, but in the deep territorial waters of their enemies, probably teaming with their allies.

As for expensive toys for the military, today every weapon is expensive, but you can buy cheap obsolete weapons which will be useless in combat. Tiny Singapore has 6 subs and more on order with the shallowest waters in SEA and I trust that its naval officers don't consider them as expensive toys.

Some idiot politicians have said that Thailand needs subs because its neighbors have some, it actually makes sense, if a conflict starts in South China sea, Thailand will probably side with China or adopt a "neutral opposition" and guess who will be the potential enemies.

In 1917 when the US (rightly) declare war to Germany it took a year before they could be ready to fight in Europe. Same, after Pearl Harbor attack, US could not stop the Japanese invading SEA and in particular their colony The Philippines. It took months thanks to their industrial power and will to be on the offensive again.

You want peace? Prepare for war.

Edited May 1, 2017 by Zyxel

[realenglish1]

The only thing this sub is good for is shooting Demography in the foot if they go through with buying it 

 

Most don't want it and don't need it . I can see it now

 

"Up Periscope  Yes I see the target now  Load torpedo  tubes  DIVE DIVE DIVE  FIRE ONE FIRE TWO

 

Yes Captain we hit the democratic  protesters Target destroyed"

 

 

[elgordo38]

What on earth is happening here!! The meek are starting to speak!!

[elgordo38]

8 hours ago, webfact said:

Chaturon said he viewed the matter as multidimensional, which should be thoroughly explained by the prime minister, defence minister, finance minister and officers from the Budget Bureau.

 

My my my using such big words as multidimensional. Article 44 should soon knock that one down. The simple answer is of course "We are buying these subs because we can end of discussion"

[realenglish1]

10 minutes ago, Zyxel said:

I agree with you and you could also have mentioned that these countries have subs on order.

Thailand does not want a fleet of subs a la Kriegsmarine, just a couple.

Subs are essential part of a navy force.

Subs have many different missions, not only submerge and launch torpedoes.

The purchase of the aircraft carrier was a stupid thing decided by a civilian government decades ago, today Thailand wants a couple of subs in a increasing tension environment, so why don't we stop comparing apples and oranges.

It will take years for Thailand to get their subs and train officers and crews, may-be too late already if a conflict emerge in South China Sea.

Thailand will not use their subs in the gulf of Thailand nor their enemies, but in the deep territorial waters of their enemies, probably teaming with their allies.

As for expensive toys for the military, today every weapon is expensive, but you can buy cheap obsolete weapons which will be useless in combat. Tiny Singapore has 6 subs and more on order with the shallowest waters in SEA and I trust that its naval officers don't consider them as expensive toys.

Some idiot politicians have said that Thailand need subs because its neighbors have some, it actually make sens, if a conflict starts in South China sea, Thailand will probably side with China or adopt a "neutral opposition" and guess who will be the potential enemies.

In 1917 when the US (rightly) declare war to Germany it took a year before they could be ready to fight in Europe. Same, after Pearl Harbor attack, US could not stop the Japanese invading SEA and in particular their colony The Philippines. It took months thanks to their industrial power and will to be on the offensive again.

You want peace? Prepare for war.

This is ok of you are a super power Thailand is obviously not one  Money would be better spent on patrol boats with armament or cruisers What in gods name does thailand need subs for For spying , stealth activity  Yes prepare for war  But the only way Thailand would prepare is as a support country .

On top of that the USA is not a threat to Thailand Nor is Russia The only country that may be a threat in the region to Thailand is China . So to buy Chinese made subs from that perspective is also a ridiculous move on the part of the Thai military 

 

IN a nutshell buying a sub is ridiculous This is the mouse that roared 

 

OH yes why was it stupid to purchase an aircraft carrier and its not stupid to buy subs 

 

Edited May 1, 2017 by realenglish1

[elgordo38]

7 minutes ago, Zyxel said:

I agree with you and you could also have mentioned that these countries have subs on order.

Thailand does not want a fleet of subs a la Kriegsmarine, just a couple.

Subs are essential part of a navy force.

Subs have many different missions, not only submerge and launch torpedoes.

The purchase of the aircraft carrier was a stupid thing decided by a civilian government decades ago, today Thailand wants a couple of subs in a increasing tension environment, so why don't we stop comparing apples and oranges.

It will take years for Thailand to get their subs and train officers and crews, may-be too late already if a conflict emerge in South China Sea.

Thailand will not use their subs in the gulf of Thailand nor their enemies, but in the deep territorial waters of their enemies, probably teaming with their allies.

As for expensive toys for the military, today every weapon is expensive, but you can buy cheap obsolete weapons which will be useless in combat. Tiny Singapore has 6 subs and more on order with the shallowest waters in SEA and I trust that its naval officers don't consider them as expensive toys.

Some idiot politicians have said that Thailand need subs because its neighbors have some, it actually make sens, if a conflict starts in South China sea, Thailand will probably side with China or adopt a "neutral opposition" and guess who will be the potential enemies.

In 1917 when the US (rightly) declare war to Germany it took a year before they could be ready to fight in Europe. Same, after Pearl Harbor attack, US could not stop the Japanese invading SEA and in particular their colony The Philippines. It took months thanks to their industrial power and will to be on the offensive again.

You want peace? Prepare for war.

Good read. These subs should be just like a tick on an elephants back if "war" or conflict ever arose. Just because there is submarine hoof and mouth disease in Asia should Thailand join in (at the cost of this money being spent more wisely on infrastructure.) Why cancel the submarine order and have an island of sanity in a world gone crazy? Crazy

[JGV]

At last a sign of dissent - THais should be more outspoken and not remain silent enabling government to do just what THEY want

[elgordo38]

7 hours ago, leeneeds said:

This current government has implemented some very good policies, 

then to  go and undermine all the positives with one very large 

Negative.

Thanks for the info. I now can relate to where the term stumblebum originated. 

[Farang hunter]

5 hours ago, Wilsonandson said:

Indonesia - 4 submarines
Vietnam - 6 submarines
Malaysia - 2 submarines
Singapore - 6 submarines
Thailand - orders 3 submarines

Why can't Thailand have submarines?

Current Military Strength Rankings

1 - Indonesia
2 - Thailand
3 - Vietnam
4 - Malaysia
5 - Singapore

a country without striking (air power) cannot defend its people or its land.

[elgordo38]

5 hours ago, cornishcarlos said:

Whilst I don't agree that buying Chinese subs is a great idea, what makes these Pheu Thai clowns think they should be dishing out spending advice !!

Its not spending advice so much its just the fact that they have finally learned that their voice boxes are still intact. 

[billd766]

3 hours ago, geriatrickid said:

Whether  you like it or not, the Pheu Thai still represents the views of millions of Thais.

 

 

But certainly not the views of millions of other Thais.

[elgordo38]

2 hours ago, TKDfella said:

Well, while I am certainly no expert on logistics etc might it be  a question of geography? Only a small portion of Thailand is flanked by the Andaman Sea while other central regions face the Gulf of Thailand. Most of the other countries you mention are basically flanked by large portions of sea area. The Gulf of Thailand can be more easily protected anti-submarine measures. This is just a thought and I haven't really looked at it in detail.

Detail translation is drum roll "Common sense"

[billd766]

2 hours ago, williamgeorgeallen said:

dont think this is really justification for thailand spending this money.  i dont see any benefit to thailand buying these subs. thailand is not under any threat and the money, where ever it came from should be better spent on helping the people, or not borrowed in the first place. wonder how the general thinks it will help the economy. it is not just purchasing them but the ongoing cost as well which will probably end up with them being mothballed like the aircraft carrier.

 

IMHO they would be better off buying just one submarine and spending the rest on anti submarine ships and aircraft. They one sub could be used as a training aid for the anti submarine force and still save face.

[Ricardo]

5 hours ago, Mosha said:

I know but he mentioned Abhisit.

Sent from my iris 505 using Tapatalk
 

 

But would you not agree, that since this has been happening for decades, then it applies to most/all previous PMs, not just one particular one ?

[elgordo38]

3 minutes ago, billd766 said:

 

IMHO they would be better off buying just one submarine and spending the rest on anti submarine ships and aircraft. They one sub could be used as a training aid for the anti submarine force and still save face.

Would you quit making sense yet again. Pass the Tylenol. The TV just announced that "We are buying the submarines period end of discussion back to your menial jobs quit complaining we are in charge. Quit talking like peasants" Its like the old TV series "Father Knows Best"

[elgordo38]

3 minutes ago, Ricardo said:

 

But would you not agree, that since this has been happening for decades, then it applies to most/all previous PMs, not just one particular one ?

Funny you should mention that but I was applying it in my mind to politicians around the world. Just finished watching the UN round table on the North Korea fiasco. This to resonated in my mind and brought back memories from the past. Who says history does not repeat itself.

[Reigntax]

5 hours ago, Ricardo said:

" Phumtham said authorities should seriously reconsider the deal. “This is not political bias. Even supporters of this government do not agree with this procurement,” he said. “It’s as if the government wants to conceal the matter, which would be bound to the national budget for the next 11 years.” "

 

That's just to buy them, then there will surely be the ongoing-cost of maintaining & operating & re-arming them, betond 11-years ? 

 

But the come with a 1 year warranty. So they must be reliable, right? Wonder if the warranty is void if they get wet or leave the dock?

[elgordo38]

1 minute ago, Reigntax said:

 

But the come with a 1 year warranty. So they must be reliable, right? Wonder if the warranty is void if they get wet or leave the dock?

I hope they read the fine print in the warranty. Hope there is not a clause saying "Shrinks when wet"

[elgordo38]

Surprised that Abbhist is so quiet on this hot button issue. He could be scoring brownie points off of this one. I guess by the time the election rolls around the subs will be tied up beside the aircraft carrier and the users will still be studying the users manuals. It will be to late of course to score points off of this white elephant. 

[Zyxel]

18 minutes ago, realenglish1 said:

This is ok of you are a super power Thailand is obviously not one  Money would be better spent on patrol boats with armament or cruisers What in gods name does thailand need subs for For spying , stealth activity  Yes prepare for war  But the only way Thailand would prepare is as a support country .

On top of that the USA is not a threat to Thailand Nor is Russia The only country that may be a threat in the region to Thailand is China . So to buy Chinese made subs from that perspective is also a ridiculous move on the part of the Thai military 

 

IN a nutshell buying a sub is ridiculous This is the mouse that roared 

 

OH yes why was it stupid to purchase an aircraft carrier and its not stupid to buy subs 

 

At the contrary, I think China and Thailand will be allies, Thailand has no interest in the South China sea and has a tradition of sleeping with the enemy if it can gain something from it (WWII Japan). You don't need to be a superpower to have subs, if your neighbors of similar size and strength have some you need some.

Yes it was stupid to buy an aircraft carrier for many reasons, like an aircraft carrier is a sitting duck if it does not have a fleet (including subs) to protect it, only super powers need some, mainly for operations far away, near your shores you can use your air-force. And it is not stupid to have subs for all the reasons I mention in my previous post.

[williamgeorgeallen]

21 minutes ago, billd766 said:

 

IMHO they would be better off buying just one submarine and spending the rest on anti submarine ships and aircraft. They one sub could be used as a training aid for the anti submarine force and still save face.

yes a fair idea but not original.  australia bought frigates with rusted out hulls and outdated colins class subs then used the out dated subs to sink one of the frigates. people seem to be careless with spending other peoples money.

[realenglish1]

1 minute ago, Zyxel said:

At the contrary, I think China and Thailand will be allies, Thailand has no interest in the South China sea and has a tradition of sleeping with the enemy if it can gain something from it (WWII Japan). You don't need to be a superpower to have subs, if your neighbors of similar size and strength have some you need some.

Yes it was stupid to buy an aircraft carrier for many reasons, like an aircraft carrier is a sitting duck if it does not have a fleet (including subs) to protect it, only super powers need some, mainly for operations far away, near your shores you can use your air-force. And it is not stupid to have subs for all the reasons I mention in my previous post.

For what reason do we need subs because you think it is not stupid They will end up a maintenance nightmare  and a costly one at that There is no infrastructure to take care of them I would like to here your thinking other than "Gee the other powers around here have them" 

[timewilltell]

6 hours ago, colinneil said:

Pheu Thai have voiced their opposition to the submarine deal.

Why bother, nobody is listening.

The boys want the subs, dont give a rats a..e what anybody says.

They are not concerned about the financial burden they are placing Thailand in.

 

Maybe concerned more about financial benefits?

[sandemara]

In political terms, due to their "reforms to promote and protect democracy" the current regime gets submarines, while optimistic opponents get broken popguns.

[Zyxel]

2 minutes ago, realenglish1 said:

For what reason do we need subs because you think it is not stupid They will end up a maintenance nightmare  and a costly one at that There is no infrastructure to take care of them I would like to here your thinking other than "Gee the other powers around here have them" 

It will take years before Thailand gets its subs, plenty of time to have the infrastructure ready, to train the officers and crew. And about the maintenance nightmare, why do you thing Thailand cannot have well trained mechanics or electricians, they have many servicing their frigates and corvettes as well as their air crafts. I worked more than 10 years in the oil industry here and my company managed to recruit, after some screening of course, excellent technicians.